ACL Rolling Review (ARR) is a centralized reviewing service targeting top-tier conferences under the Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Built atop the OpenReview platform, ARR implements the initial stages of conference reviewing in 2 month cycles, culminating in the release to authors of reviews and a metareview.
  • Authors may submit a revision to a subsequent ARR cycle and request the same or new reviewers.
  • Reviews are decoupled from acceptance decisions: as long as a paper has reviews and has not yet been accepted by a venue, the authors can choose among participating venues, whose program committees will consider the already-reviewed papers for acceptance.

For further information about submitting, see the page for Authors.

ARR began with a 2020 proposal. As of mid-2023, it has evolved with experience and feedback from the community. In 2024, the ACL, EACL, and NAACL main conferences will use ARR as the sole submission system. Other venues may adopt ARR as well. The ARR team continues to welcome input on the design of the review process.

Follow us on  Twitter and  Facebook.

Updates

Modified Timeline November

For November, working with the ACL 2022 senior area chairs and program chairs, we will have a slightly modified ARR timeline.

  • Nov 19-22 - SACs check AE assignments
  • Nov 25 - finalized AE assignments
  • November 27 - AEs notified of assignments
  • Nov 27-29 - desk rejects and manual check of reviewer assignment by AEs
  • Nov 29 - Reviewers notified of assignments
  • Nov 29 - Dec 27: reviewing
  • Dec 28-29 - AEs find emergency reviewers and lead discussions
  • Dec 28-31 - Emergency reviewing
  • Dec 28-Jan 7 - AEs prepare meta reviews
  • Jan 10, 2022 - ARR reviews for a Nov 15 submission sent to the authors
  • Jan 15, 2022 - ACL 2022 commitment deadline
Read More

ARR Status Report

The ACL Rolling Review (ARR) officially kicked off in early 2021, with the first call for papers in April, and the first deadline in May. This initiative was started with the promise of a unified reviewer pool, more consistent reviewing, lower average reviewer load, and faster submission to publication timelines.

Read More