2017 ACL 2017:ACs to Rank

From Admin Wiki
Revision as of 11:26, 14 August 2017 by Knmnyn (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Sent to '''Track Chairs'''. <nowiki> Subject: [ACL 2017] Area Chairs: Ranking papers, naughty/nice reviewers by Mar 28 </nowiki> <pre> Dear [reviewerFirstName] [reviewerLas...")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Sent to Track Chairs.

Subject: [ACL 2017] Area Chairs: Ranking papers, naughty/nice reviewers by Mar 28

Dear [reviewerFirstName] [reviewerLastName]:

This is the final stretch!  We hope to receive two things from you in
the next 5 days (due Mar 28, but the sooner, the better).

1. Ranked list of papers.  We need separate short and long paper
recommendations.  We'd like you to categorize papers into: 1. strong
accept, 2. accept but ok to reject, and 3. reject. We also further
need your help in giving a short explanation of your recommendation,
mandatory for the 2. accept but ok to reject class, but you're
welcomed to annotate others (e.g., potential outstanding paper).  We
also need your recommendation on oral vs. poster format in a separate

For papers with COIs, list them in the ranking as having COI.  Each AC
should separately provide recommendations on the same axes for
accept/reject, poster/oral for the submissions they don't have COI

2. Reviewer status.  Here's when we get to decide who was naughty and
who was nice.  Please compile a list through your meta AC on whom you
think did great reviewing (prompt, careful, precise, considered,
backed with evidence, courteous and comprehensive) and whom you think
we should not invite back from your pool of reviewers (and a short
reason for it).

How can you submit this?  The easiest way is to open our template
Google spreadsheet ( http://bit.ly/2nJEfZB ) and duplicate a copy for
your area's use.  Share it with Min and Regina and modify the three
worksheets (long, short, reviewers) to encompass your rankings.  For
COIs, each area's Meta AC can decide whether to enter the COI information by themselves (disallowing other ACs with any COI from viewing the worksheet), or to have each AC email their ranking directly to the PC co-chairs

Best to each AC team in this final stretch!  Try to push papers
towards either an accept or reject where you think your decision is
defensible.  It should be easier work with the lengthened dialogue and
author response that we can use to better judge each submission.


Regina and  Min

P.S. Poster vs. Oral?  Many of us have our own ideas about this and
this can be a weighty decision to make.  This will be the subject of
another blog post to be put up shortly so that it can be discussed in

ACL 2017 Long - https://www.softconf.com/acl2017/papers
ACL 2017 Short - https://www.softconf.com/acl2017/shortpapers