ACL 2012: The 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational
Linguistics

Review form for APPLICATIONS/TOOLS research papers

This review form is appropriate for papers that present a system
that has been developed, implemented, and tested with users.


APPROPRIATENESS (1-5)

Does the paper fit in ACL 2012? (Please answer this question in light
of the desire to broaden the scope of the research areas represented
at ACL.)

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)

Is there novelty in the developed application or tool? Does it address a new
problem or one that has received little attention? Alternatively, does
it present a system that has significant benefits over other systems,
either in terms of its usability, coverage, or success?

5 = Seminal: Significant new problem, or a major advance
    over other applications or tools that attack this problem.
4 = Noteworthy: An interesting new problem, with clear
    benefits over other applications or tools that attack this problem.
3 = Respectable: A nice research contribution that represents a notable
    extension of prior approaches.
2 = Marginal: Minor improvements on existing applications or tools in this 
    area.
1 = The system does not represent any advance in the area of
    natural language processing.


IMPLEMENTATION AND SOUNDNESS (1-5)

Has the application or tool been fully implemented or do certain parts of the
system remain to be implemented? Does it  achieve its claims?
Is enough detail provided that one might be able to replicate the
application or tool with some effort? Are working examples provided
and do they adequately illustrate the claims made?

5 = The application or tool is fully implemented, and the claims are
    convincingly supported. Other researchers should be able to
    replicate the work.
4 = Generally solid work, although there are some aspects of the
    application or tool that still need work, and/or some claims that should be
    better illustrated and supported.
3 = Fairly reasonable work. The main claims are illustrated to some
    extent with examples, but I am not entirely ready to accept that
    the application or tool can do everything that it should (based on the material
    in the paper).
2 = Troublesome. There are some aspects that might be
    good, but the application or tool has several deficiencies and/or
    limitations that make it premature.
1 = Fatally flawed. 


EVALUATION (1-5)

To what extent has the application or tool been tested and evaluated? Have there
been any user studies?

5 = The application or tool has been thoroughly tested. Rigorous evaluation 
  on a large corpus or via formal user studies support the
    claims made for the system. Critical analysis of the results
    yields many insights into the limitations (if any).
4 = The application or tool has been tested and evaluated on a reasonable corpus or
    with a small set of users. The results support the claims made. 
    Critical analysis of the results yields some insights into
    the limitations (if any).
3 = The application or tool has been tested and evaluated to a limited extent. 
   The results have been critically analyzed to gain insight into the
    system's performance.
2 = A few test cases have been run on the application or tool but no 
    significant evaluation or user study has been performed.
1 = The application or tool has not been tested or evaluated.



MEANINGFUL COMPARISON (1-5)

Does the author make clear where the presented system sits with
respect to existing literature? Are the references adequate? Are the
benefits of the system/application 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.


SUBSTANCE (1-5)

Does this paper have enough substance, or would it benefit from more
ideas or analysis?

Note that this question mainly concerns the amount of work; its
quality is evaluated in other categories.

5 = Contains more ideas or analysis than most publications in this
    conference; goes the extra mile.
4 = Represents an appropriate amount of work for a publication in this
    conference. (most submissions)
3 = Leaves open one or two natural questions that should have been
    pursued within the paper.
2 = Work in progress. There are enough good ideas, but perhaps not
    enough results yet.
1 = Seems thin. Not enough ideas here for a full-length paper.


IMPACT OF IDEAS OR RESULTS (1-5)

How significant is the work described? Will novel aspects of the
system result in other researchers adopting the approach in their own
work? Does the system represent a significant and important advance in
implemented and tested human language technology?

5 = A major advance in the state-of-the-art in human language
    technology that will have a major impact on the field.
4 = Some important advances over previous systems, and likely to
    impact development work of other research groups.
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.



IMPACT OF ACCOMPANYING SOFTWARE (1-5)

If software was submitted along with the paper, what is the expected
impact of the software package? Will this software be valuable to 
others? Is the software well written and easy to use? Does it have 
a complete README file? Does the software match the research described 
in the paper? 


5 = Enabling: The newly released software should affect other
    people's choice of research or development projects to undertake.
4 = Useful: I would recommend the new software to other researchers
    or developers for their ongoing work.
3 = Potentially useful: Someone might find the new software useful
    for their work.
2 = Documentary: The new software useful to study or replicate
    the reported research, although for other purposes they may have
    limited interest or limited usability. (Still a positive rating)
1 = No usable software released.



IMPACT OF ACCOMPANYING DATASET (1-5)


If a dataset was submitted along with the paper, what is the expected 
impact of the dataset? Will this dataset be valuable to others in 
the form in which they are released? Do they fill an unmet need? Are 
they at least sufficient to replicate or better understand the 
research in the paper?


5 = Enabling: The newly released datasets should affect other
    people's choice of research or development projects to undertake.
4 = Useful: I would recommend the new datasets to other researchers
    or developers for their ongoing work.
3 = Potentially useful: Someone might find the new datasets useful
    for their work.
2 = Documentary: The new datasets are useful to study or replicate
    the reported research, although for other purposes they may have
    limited interest or limited usability. (Still a positive rating)
1 = No usable datasets submitted.




RECOMMENDATION (1-6)

There are many good submissions competing for slots at ACL 2012; 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 papers at the conference.
5 = Strong: I'd like to see it accepted; it will be one of the
            better papers at the conference.
4 = Worthy: A good 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 LONG PAPER AWARD (1-3)

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