As discussed in the recent policy announcement, we are requiring that all ARR authors must complete a form to confirm that they will serve as reviewers or ACs if asked. As the policy specifies, authors are allowed to ask for a duty exemption and provide a reason. This document provides a categorization of acceptable and unacceptable reasons for such exemptions that will begin to be enforced starting from the July 2025 ARR cycle.
While we recognize that case-by-case consideration might still be required, we provide the following as a rough guideline to inform both authors and future ARR Editors-in-Chief (and conference Program Chairs). The categories below stem from the assumption that reviewing as a service is a mandatory part of our work as researchers and inextricably linked to authoring research papers, consistent with the view that submissions foster a partnership between authors-reviewers and the conference. Most of us are busy people, but when we commit to being a co-author of a given submission, we also accept the responsibilities that come with that, and that includes budgeting the time for reviewing (or making plans with secondary reviewers). If an author is serving the same community under a different role, we consider their obligation fulfilled. The categorization has been developed by the EMNLP 2025 PCs together with ARR, and may evolve in response to community feedback in future cycles.
We consider the following peer review service–related reasons acceptable as exceptions to reviewing requirement (* marks NLP venues or strongly related venues with significant overlap in dates):
- AC/SAC for the same venue or a related* venue
- Program co-chair/local chair/general chair in the same or related* venue
- Editor-in-chief of a major journal*
We also consider the following personal reasons as acceptable under certain circumstances (e.g., the condition being unexpected or beyond the control of the individual):
- Medical emergency
- Parental leave
- Family medical leave (e.g., taking care of a sick parent)
- Other emergency (e.g., natural disaster)
Finally, we will consider exemptions for authors that although technically qualifying, feel that they cannot fulfil their duties due to lack of expertise. Again, these will be approved on a case-by-case basis.
We consider the following as unacceptable reasons:
- Department Chair, Dean, Associate Dean, Center Director
- Being on sabbatical
- Being on vacation
- Reviewing for other conferences (whose service dates aren’t overlapping)
- Performing other service (not listed above)
- Changing jobs
- Studying for an exam
- Busy with work / over-commitment
- Known or pre-existing medical conditions (present at the time of writing the paper)
While some authors in these circumstances may feel that they are too busy to adequately review, ARR does allow the use of secondary reviewers that may help ameliorate concerns around time commitments.