Starting with the April 15 deadline, there will be a brief period for author response within the ARR review cycle.

• for 5 days after the deadline for regular reviews, authors can make comments on the reviews, using the discussion forum within OpenReview (as is done, for example, with ICLR)
• the comments should be limited to clear factual errors or serious misunderstandings
• reviewers may respond to authors’ comments or update their reviews, but are not obligated to do so
• action editors will take these comments into account when writing their metareview

Effective the 15 April 2022 deadline, with permission of the ACL executive and the ACL committee on reviewing, ARR will be moving to a six-week cycle with deadlines every six weeks.

Action editors and reviewers may now request letters of recognition for their ARR service! Instructions can be found in the:

• Action editors’ guide to OpenReview
• Reviewers’ guide to OpenReview

We have data. Thanks to great work from Sebastin Santy on our tech team, we now have a regularly updated statistics dashboard for ACL Rolling Review. When you refer to it, please note the last updated date as data for the current cycles may be somewhat delayed. As always, feedback welcome.

One of the initiatives that ARR supports is the ongoing collection of data about peer-review in NLP. Nils Dycke, Ilia Kuznetsov and Iryna Gurevych have been leading an ACL-approved initiative to collect review data on an opt-in basis. They provide a status update and invite discussion here.

As an author, reviewer or action editor for OpenReview, when and how should you declare a conflict of interest?