Action Editor Form

Paper Summary

Describe what this paper is about. This should help SACs at publication venues understand the sessions into which the paper might fit.

Summary of Strengths

What are the major strengths of this paper? This should help SACs at publication venues understand why they might want to accept the paper.

Summary of Weaknesses

What revisions could the authors make to the research and the paper that would improve it? This should help authors understand the reviews in context, and help them plan any future resubmission.

Overall Assessment

What is your overall assessment of this paper?

  • 5, The paper is largely complete and there are no clear points of revision
  • 4, There are minor points that may be revised
  • 3, There are major points that may be revised
  • 2, The paper would need significant revisions to reach a publishable state
  • 1, Even after revisions, the paper is not likely to be publishable at an *ACL venue

Suggested Venue(s)

You are encouraged to suggest conferences or workshops that would be suitable for this paper.

Best Paper

Could the camera-ready version of this paper merit consideration for an ‘outstanding paper’ award (up to 2.5% of accepted papers at *ACL conferences will be recognized in this way)? Outstanding papers should be either fascinating, controversial, surprising, impressive, or potentially field-changing. Awards will be decided based on the camera-ready version of the paper.

  • Yes
  • Maybe
  • No

If the answer is Yes or Maybe, please justify your decision:

Ethical Concerns

Independent of your judgement of the quality of the work, please review the ACL code of ethics and list any ethical concerns related to this paper.

Should this paper be sent for an in-depth ethics review? We have a small ethics committee that can specially review very challenging papers when it comes to ethical issues. If this seems to be such a paper, then please explain why here, and we will try to ensure that it receives a separate review.

Review Feednack

Please list the ids of all reviewers who went beyond expectations in terms of providing informative and constructive reviews and discussion. For example: jAxb, zZac

Please list the ids of all reviewers whose reviews did not meet expectations. For example: jAxb, zZac