ACL 2010: The 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational
Linguistics

Review form for SHORT PARADIGMS/TECHNIQUES/STRATEGIES research papers

This review form is appropriate for papers that present a new
paradigm, technique, or computational strategy for NLP that is 
supported by convincing analysis and examples.  However, the 
approach may not yet have an extensive evaluation on a dataset.


APPROPRIATENESS (1-5)

Does the paper fit in ACL 2010 as a short paper? Does this paper have
any particular attributes that make it suitable for being a short
paper?  (Please answer this question in light of the desire to broaden
the scope of the research areas represented at ACL, and with reference
to the examples listed in the Call for Papers as being suitable for
short papers: reporting smaller experiments; describing
work-in-progress; single-author position papers; challenge papers;
descriptions of new language resources or evaluation methodologies;
presenting negative results.)

5 = Certainly.
4 = Probably.
3 = Unsure.
2 = Probably not.
1 = Certainly not. 


CLARITY (1-5)

For the reasonably well-prepared reader, is it clear what was done and
why? Is the paper well-written and well-structured?

5 = Very clear.
4 = Understandable by most readers.
3 = Mostly understandable to me with some effort.
2 = Important questions were hard to resolve even with effort.
1 = Much of the paper is confusing. 


ORIGINALITY / INNOVATIVENESS (1-5)

How original is the approach? Does this paper break new ground in
topic, methodology, or content? How exciting and innovative is the
research it describes?

Note that a paper could score high for originality even if the results
do not show a convincing benefit.

5 = Seminal: Significant new problem, technique, methodology, or
    insight --- no prior research has attempted something similar.
4 = Creative: An intriguing problem, technique, or approach
    that is substantially different from previous research. 
3 = Respectable: A nice research contribution that represents a
    significant extension of prior approaches or methodologies.
2 = Pedestrian: Obvious, or a minor improvement on familiar
    techniques.
1 = Significant portions have actually been done before or done
    better.


SOUNDNESS / CORRECTNESS (1-5)

First, is the technical approach sound and well-chosen? Second, can
one trust the claims of the paper -- are they supported by extensive
critical analysis and convincing examples.  Are any experiments
correctly interpreted?

5 = The approach is very apt, and the claims are convincingly supported.
4 = Generally solid work, although there are some aspects of the
    approach I am not sure about or the analysis could be stronger.
3 = Fairly reasonable work. The approach is not bad, and at least the
    main claims are probably correct, but I am not entirely ready to
    accept them (based on the material in the paper).
2 = Troublesome. There are some ideas worth salvaging here, but the
    work should really have been done or evaluated differently.
1 = Fatally flawed. 


MEANINGFUL COMPARISON (1-5)

Does the author make clear where the problems and methods sit with
respect to existing literature? Are the references adequate? Are the
benefits of the paradigms/techniques well-supported and are the
limitations identified? 

5 = Precise and complete comparison with related work. Benefits 
    and limitations are fully described and supported.
4 = Mostly solid bibliography and comparison, but there are a few
    additional references that should be included.  Discussion of
    benefits and limitations is acceptable but not enlightening. 
3 = Bibliography and comparison are somewhat helpful, but it could be
    hard for a reader to determine exactly how this work relates to
    previous work or what its benefits and limitations are.
2 = Only partial awareness and understanding of related work, or a
    flawed comparison or deficient comparision with other work.
1 = Little awareness of related work, or insufficient justification
    of benefits and discussion of limitations.


IMPACT OF IDEAS OR RESULTS (1-5)

How significant is the work described? If the ideas are novel, will
they also be useful or inspirational? If the results are sound, are
they also important? Does the paper bring new insights into the nature
of the problem?

5 = Will affect the field by altering other people's choice of
    research topics or basic approach.
4 = Some of the ideas or results will substantially help other
    people's ongoing research.
3 = Interesting but not too influential. The work will be cited, but
    mainly for comparison or as a source of minor contributions.
2 = Marginally interesting. May or may not be cited.
1 = Will have no impact on the field.


RECOMMENDATION (1-6)

There are many good submissions competing for slots at ACL 2010; how
important is it to feature this one? Will people learn a lot by
reading this paper or seeing it presented?

In deciding on your ultimate recommendation, please think over all
your scores above. But remember that no paper is perfect, and remember
that we want a conference full of interesting, diverse, and timely
work. If a paper has some weaknesses, but you really got a lot out of
it, feel free to fight for it. If a paper is solid but you could live
without it, let us know that you're ambivalent. Remember also that the
author has a few weeks to address reviewer comments before the
camera-ready deadline.

Should the paper be accepted or rejected?

6 = Exciting: I'd fight to get it accepted; probably would be one
              of the best short papers at the conference.
5 = Strong: I'd like to see it accepted; it will be one of the
            better short papers at the conference.
4 = Worthy: A good short paper that is worthy of being presented at ACL.
3 = Ambivalent: OK but does not seem up to the standards of ACL.
2 = Leaning against: I'd rather not see it in the conference.
1 = Poor: I'd fight to have it rejected.


REVIEWER CONFIDENCE (1-5)

5 = Positive that my evaluation is correct. I read the paper very
    carefully and am familiar with related work.  
4 = Quite sure. I tried to check the important points carefully. It's
    unlikely, though conceivable, that I missed something that should
    affect my ratings.
3 = Pretty sure, but there's a chance I missed something. Although I
    have a good feel for this area in general, I did not carefully check
    the paper's details, e.g., the math, experimental design, or novelty.
2 = Willing to defend my evaluation, but it is fairly likely that I
    missed some details, didn't understand some central points, or can't
    be sure about the novelty of the work.
1 = Not my area, or paper is very hard to understand. My evaluation is
    just an educated guess.


RECOMMENDATION FOR BEST SHORT PAPER AWARD (1-3)

3 = Definitely.
2 = Maybe.
1 = Definitely not.