ACL Policies for Review and Citation - Revision history

Y.feng: /* May 2, 2025 */

2025-05-03T05:06:27Z

May 2, 2025

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:06, 3 May 2025
Line 37:		Line 37:
	* Recommendation 1. Systematically provide incentives for great reviewers, i.e. [[ACL Conference Reviewer Awards Policy]]. The original file is [[Media:ACL_Conference_Reviewer_Awards_Policy_May_2025.pdf\|here]].		* Recommendation 1. Systematically provide incentives for great reviewers, i.e. [[ACL Conference Reviewer Awards Policy]]. The original file is [[Media:ACL_Conference_Reviewer_Awards_Policy_May_2025.pdf\|here]].
	* Recommendation 2. Create a clear protocol for handling deeply problematic reviewers.		* Recommendation 2. Create a clear protocol for handling deeply problematic reviewers.

	Please refer to [[Media:ACL_Peer_Review_Committee_Report2_Incentives_May_2025.pdf\|the report]] for more details		Please refer to [[Media:ACL_Peer_Review_Committee_Report2_Incentives_May_2025.pdf\|the report]] for more details

Y.feng: /* May 2, 2025 */

2025-05-03T05:05:57Z

May 2, 2025

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:05, 3 May 2025
Line 37:		Line 37:
	* Recommendation 1. Systematically provide incentives for great reviewers, i.e. [[ACL Conference Reviewer Awards Policy]]. The original file is [[Media:ACL_Conference_Reviewer_Awards_Policy_May_2025.pdf\|here]].		* Recommendation 1. Systematically provide incentives for great reviewers, i.e. [[ACL Conference Reviewer Awards Policy]]. The original file is [[Media:ACL_Conference_Reviewer_Awards_Policy_May_2025.pdf\|here]].
	* Recommendation 2. Create a clear protocol for handling deeply problematic reviewers.		* Recommendation 2. Create a clear protocol for handling deeply problematic reviewers.
	Please refer to [[]] for more details		Please refer to [[Media:ACL_Peer_Review_Committee_Report2_Incentives_May_2025.pdf\|the report]] for more details

	== Citation ==		== Citation ==

Y.feng: /* Review */

2025-05-03T05:03:21Z

Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:03, 3 May 2025
Line 28:		Line 28:
	<font color="red">After January 12, 2024, ACL reviewing procedures will explicitly ask reviewers to disclose any outside knowledge they may have about a submitted paper, and will take this information into account when assigning and using reviews. This new policy is described [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>		<font color="red">After January 12, 2024, ACL reviewing procedures will explicitly ask reviewers to disclose any outside knowledge they may have about a submitted paper, and will take this information into account when assigning and using reviews. This new policy is described [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>

	=== February 5, ~~2024~~ ===		=== February 5, 2025 ===

	In Febuaray, 2025, ~~the ACL Exec Committee approved~~ two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to [[Media: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf \| the report]].		In Febuaray 2025, two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee were approved by the ACL Exec Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to [[Media: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf \| the report]].

			=== May 2, 2025 ===

			Two recommendations from ACL Peer Review Committee about systematic incentives for peer review quality in the *ACL community were adopted by the ACL Exec Committee starting from May 2025 (review cycle associated with EMNLP'25).
			* Recommendation 1. Systematically provide incentives for great reviewers, i.e. [[ACL Conference Reviewer Awards Policy]]. The original file is [[Media:ACL_Conference_Reviewer_Awards_Policy_May_2025.pdf\|here]].
			* Recommendation 2. Create a clear protocol for handling deeply problematic reviewers.
			Please refer to [[]] for more details

	== Citation ==		== Citation ==

Y.feng: /* February 5, 2024 */

2025-05-03T04:32:24Z

February 5, 2024

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:32, 3 May 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:
	=== February 5, 2024 ===		=== February 5, 2024 ===

	In Febuaray, 2025, the ACL Exec Committee approved two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to [[~~File~~: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf \| the report]].		In Febuaray, 2025, the ACL Exec Committee approved two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to [[Media: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf \| the report]].

	== Citation ==		== Citation ==

Y.feng at 04:31, 3 May 2025

2025-05-03T04:31:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 3 May 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:
	=== February 5, 2024 ===		=== February 5, 2024 ===

	In Febuaray, 2025, the ACL Exec Committee approved two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to [[File: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf the report]].		In Febuaray, 2025, the ACL Exec Committee approved two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to [[File: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf \| the report]].

	== Citation ==		== Citation ==

Y.feng: /* February 5, 2024 */

2025-05-03T04:28:57Z

February 5, 2024

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:28, 3 May 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:
	=== February 5, 2024 ===		=== February 5, 2024 ===

	In Febuaray, 2025, the ACL Exec Committee approved two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to ~~the report:~~		In Febuaray, 2025, the ACL Exec Committee approved two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to [[File: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf the report]].

	[[File: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf]]

	== Citation ==		== Citation ==

Y.feng: /* Review */

2025-05-03T04:28:13Z

Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:28, 3 May 2025
Line 27:		Line 27:

	<font color="red">After January 12, 2024, ACL reviewing procedures will explicitly ask reviewers to disclose any outside knowledge they may have about a submitted paper, and will take this information into account when assigning and using reviews. This new policy is described [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>		<font color="red">After January 12, 2024, ACL reviewing procedures will explicitly ask reviewers to disclose any outside knowledge they may have about a submitted paper, and will take this information into account when assigning and using reviews. This new policy is described [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>

			=== February 5, 2024 ===

			In Febuaray, 2025, the ACL Exec Committee approved two recommendations proposed by the ACL Peer Review Standing Committee: (1) moving to 5 annual ARR cycles, and (2) experimenting with making Findings decisions in ARR. For more information, please refer to the report:

			[[File: COPR-5-cycle-report-to-publish.pdf]]

	== Citation ==		== Citation ==

Y.feng: /* Review */

2025-05-03T04:12:27Z

Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:12, 3 May 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:

	To preserve the merits of double-blind review, reviewers for *ACL conferences and TACL should be instructed not to actively try to discover the identity of the authors and not to let any suspicion or knowledge of author identity affect their judgment of the paper. This should not prevent them from searching for related work, but they should take special care and postpone such searches until after they have read the paper completely and formed an initial impression of it. If a reviewer nevertheless uncovers the identity of the authors (or believes they can identify the authors for other reasons), they should inform the area chair or action editor (but not other reviewers) so that this information can be taken into account when making the final acceptance decision. <!-- [COVERED BY NEW POLICY] To be able to track how often this happens, we also recommend adding a question to the review form about whether reviewers think they can identify the authors and who they think the authors are. -->		To preserve the merits of double-blind review, reviewers for *ACL conferences and TACL should be instructed not to actively try to discover the identity of the authors and not to let any suspicion or knowledge of author identity affect their judgment of the paper. This should not prevent them from searching for related work, but they should take special care and postpone such searches until after they have read the paper completely and formed an initial impression of it. If a reviewer nevertheless uncovers the identity of the authors (or believes they can identify the authors for other reasons), they should inform the area chair or action editor (but not other reviewers) so that this information can be taken into account when making the final acceptance decision. <!-- [COVERED BY NEW POLICY] To be able to track how often this happens, we also recommend adding a question to the review form about whether reviewers think they can identify the authors and who they think the authors are. -->

			=== January 12, 2024 ===

	<font color="red">After January 12, 2024, ACL reviewing procedures will explicitly ask reviewers to disclose any outside knowledge they may have about a submitted paper, and will take this information into account when assigning and using reviews. This new policy is described [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>		<font color="red">After January 12, 2024, ACL reviewing procedures will explicitly ask reviewers to disclose any outside knowledge they may have about a submitted paper, and will take this information into account when assigning and using reviews. This new policy is described [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>

Iryna Gurevych: /* Submission */ elim dup text

2024-01-12T13:09:54Z

Submission: elim dup text

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:09, 12 January 2024
Line 12:		Line 12:
	<font color="red">This rest of this section applies only to papers that were submitted for deadlines before January 12, 2024. These restrictions do not apply to papers submitted later, although authors are still cautioned against extensive advertising. This new policy is explained [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>		<font color="red">This rest of this section applies only to papers that were submitted for deadlines before January 12, 2024. These restrictions do not apply to papers submitted later, although authors are still cautioned against extensive advertising. This new policy is explained [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>

	~~<nowiki>*</nowiki>ACL conferences and TACL require that submissions be anonymized.~~
	A submission will ''not'' be considered anonymized if the authors post (or update) a non-anonymized preprint version within an ''anonymity period'' lasting from 1 month before the submission deadline until the time of notification (or withdrawal). Submissions will be rejected if not properly anonymized.		A submission will ''not'' be considered anonymized if the authors post (or update) a non-anonymized preprint version within an ''anonymity period'' lasting from 1 month before the submission deadline until the time of notification (or withdrawal). Submissions will be rejected if not properly anonymized.
	* ''Anonymized'' preprints within the anonymity period are allowed. This is currently only possible on certain platforms but ACL may consider using such a platform for all submissions in the future.		* ''Anonymized'' preprints within the anonymity period are allowed. This is currently only possible on certain platforms but ACL may consider using such a platform for all submissions in the future.

Iryna Gurevych: /* Submission */ paragraph boundary

2024-01-12T13:09:27Z

Submission: paragraph boundary

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:09, 12 January 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:

	<font color="red">This rest of this section applies only to papers that were submitted for deadlines before January 12, 2024. These restrictions do not apply to papers submitted later, although authors are still cautioned against extensive advertising. This new policy is explained [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>		<font color="red">This rest of this section applies only to papers that were submitted for deadlines before January 12, 2024. These restrictions do not apply to papers submitted later, although authors are still cautioned against extensive advertising. This new policy is explained [[ACL Anonymity Policy\|here]].</font>

	<nowiki>*</nowiki>ACL conferences and TACL require that submissions be anonymized.		<nowiki>*</nowiki>ACL conferences and TACL require that submissions be anonymized.
	A submission will ''not'' be considered anonymized if the authors post (or update) a non-anonymized preprint version within an ''anonymity period'' lasting from 1 month before the submission deadline until the time of notification (or withdrawal). Submissions will be rejected if not properly anonymized.		A submission will ''not'' be considered anonymized if the authors post (or update) a non-anonymized preprint version within an ''anonymity period'' lasting from 1 month before the submission deadline until the time of notification (or withdrawal). Submissions will be rejected if not properly anonymized.