ACL Rolling Review (ARR) invites the submission of long and short papers on substantial, original, and unpublished research in all aspects of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. The purpose of ARR is to improve the efficiency and turnaround of ACL reviewing while keeping the diversity (topical, geographic and otherwise) and editorial freedom that we value about our current organization of the reviewing process at ACL venues. ARR will use Open Review as its platform (but reviews will not be open in ARR). The reviewing and acceptance of papers for publication will be done in two steps:
- Step 1 – Centralized Rolling Review: Authors submit papers to a unified review pool with deadlines every two months. Review is handled by an action editor, and revision and resubmission of papers is allowed.
- Step 2 – Commitment to a Publication Venue: A publication venue is a conference or workshop that accepts reviews from ARR. When an opportunity to commit to a publication venue comes around, authors may submit papers with fully completed review (including meta reviews). Program chairs decide the process for committing ARR reviewed papers, as well as the criteria and process for deciding to accept a subset of these submissions into their event.
All topics in Computational Linguistics / Natural Language Processing are covered by ARR. At submission, papers must select a topic area to assist with AE and reviewer matching. The current set of areas are (in alphabetical order):
- Computational Social Science and Cultural Analytics
- Dialogue and Interactive Systems
- Discourse and Pragmatics
- Efficient/Low-Resource Methods for NLP
- Ethics, Bias, and Fairness
- Information Extraction
- Information Retrieval and Text Mining
- Interpretability and Analysis of Models for NLP
- Linguistic theories, Cognitive Modeling and Psycholinguistics
- Machine Learning for NLP
- Machine Translation
- Multilinguality and Language Diversity
- Multimodality and Language Grounding to Vision, Robotics and Beyond
- NLP Applications
- Phonology, Morphology and Word Segmentation
- Question Answering
- Resources and Evaluation
- Semantics: Lexical
- Semantics: Sentence-level Semantics, Textual Inference and Other areas
- Sentiment Analysis, Stylistic Analysis, and Argument Mining
- Speech recognition, text-to-speech and spoken language understanding
- Syntax: Tagging, Chunking and Parsing
In addition, ARR welcomes submissions related to special Themes proposed by participating publication venues.
PAPER SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Long papers must describe substantial, original, completed and unpublished work. Wherever appropriate, concrete evaluation and analysis should be included. Long papers may consist of up to eight (8) pages of content, plus up to one page for ethical considerations and/or limitations (see below), plus unlimited pages of references. Submissions that exceed the length requirements will be desk rejected.
Short paper submissions must describe original and unpublished work. Please note that a short paper is not a shortened long paper. Instead, short papers should have a point that can be made in a few pages. Some kinds of short papers are:
- A small, focused contribution
- A negative result
- An opinion piece
- An interesting application nugget
Short papers may consist of up to four (4) pages of content, plus up to one page for the ethical considerations/limitations section (see below), plus unlimited pages of references. Submissions that exceed the length requirements will be desk rejected.
Instructions for Two-Way Anonymized Review
Papers must not include authors’ names and affiliations. Furthermore, self-references that reveal the authors’ identities, e.g., “We previously showed (Smith, 1991) …” must be avoided. Instead, use citations such as “Smith previously showed (Smith, 1991) …” Papers should not refer, for further detail, to documents that are not available to the reviewers.
Supplementary materials should also be anonymized. This includes author responses during the review process.
Submissions that violate these requirements will be desk rejected.
ARR is subject to the ACL Policies for Review and Citation, which were updated in early 2024. Beginning with the February 15, 2024 ARR deadlines, there is no anonymity period or limitation on posting or discussing non-anonymous preprints while the work is under peer review.
The author list for submissions should include all (and only) individuals who made substantial contributions to the work presented. Each author listed on a submission to ARR will be notified of submissions and reviews.
Please notice that once the paper has been submitted, no changes to the list of authors are allowed.
Citation and Comparison
Authors are expected to cite all refereed publications relevant to their submission but may be excused for not knowing about all unpublished work (especially work that has been recently posted and/or is not widely cited).
In cases where a preprint has been superseded by a refereed publication, the refereed publication should be cited in addition to or instead of the preprint version.
Papers (whether refereed or not) appearing less than 3 months before the submission deadline are considered contemporaneous to a submission, and authors are therefore not obliged to make detailed comparisons that require additional experimentation and/or in-depth analysis.
For more information, see the ACL Policies for Review and Citation.
Multiple Submission Policy
There are several cases to consider:
- ARR + Other Venue: ARR precludes multiple submissions. ARR will not consider any paper that is under review in a journal or another conference at the time of submission, and submitted papers must not be submitted elsewhere during the ARR review period. This policy covers all journals and refereed and archival conferences and workshops without exception (e.g., TACL, Computational Linguistics, IJCAI, SIGIR, AAAI, ICASSP, ICML, NeurIPS, etc). In addition, we will not consider any paper that overlaps significantly in content or results with papers that will be (or have been) published elsewhere, without exception.
- ARR + Commitment: The commitment process is treated as being under review for a conference. That means (a) while in an active review cycle at ARR, a paper cannot be committed to a conference, and (b) between commitment to a conference and a decision or withdrawal, a paper cannot be submitted to ARR. For example, if you got reviews in the June 2023 cycle, you cannot both commit to EMNLP (August 22nd deadline) and submit a revised version to the August 2023 ARR cycle. Note that this is a change of policy relative to the early days of ARR, when this type of dual submission was permitted for ACL and NAACL 2022.
- Commitment + Commitment/Other Venue: Whether you can commit/submit to two venues simultaneously depends on the dual submission policies of those venues. Typically, it is not permitted.
- ARR + ARR: For the sake of clarity, this policy also covers ARR itself; authors may not resubmit to ARR work that is already under review to ARR. As of 2023, ARR does not have overlapping cycles, and so this is a moot point.
Submissions that violate requirements 1, 2, or 4 will be desk rejected.
Authors may resubmit to ACL Rolling Review.
- When resubmitting, authors must link to the previous submission.
- When resubmitting, authors should provide a response to the previous reviews.
- Resubmissions must be modified versions of the original submission that address issues raised by the reviewers and meta review; the authors may not simply resubmit the exact same paper, nor may they submit a completely new paper as if it were a resubmission. Resubmissions that ignore relevant feedback provided during the previous review round can be desk rejected by the EiC team.
- If authors want to add an author as part of a resubmission, they may do so with justification; except in extremely rare circumstances, authors may not be removed.
- Resubmitted papers will go back to the original reviewers and action editor, where possible, unless the authors request new reviewers.
Authors considering a resubmission should also refer to the withdrawal policy below.
Authors are required to honour the ethical code set out in the ACL Code of Ethics.
The consideration of the ethical impact of our research, use of data, and potential applications of our work has always been an important consideration, and as artificial intelligence is becoming more mainstream, these issues are increasingly pertinent. We ask that all authors read the code, and ensure that their work is conformant to this code. Authors are encouraged to devote a section of their paper to concerns about the ethical impact of the work and to a discussion of broader impacts of the work, which will be taken into account in the review process. This discussion may extend into a 5th page (short papers) or 9th page (long papers). In addition, we provide a responsible NLP research checklist, which authors must complete as part of their paper submission.
We reserve the right to reject papers on ethical grounds, where the authors are judged to have operated counter to the code of ethics, or have inadequately addressed legitimate ethical concerns with their work. Indeed, the ARR review form includes a section addressing these issues and papers flagged for ethical concerns by reviewers or action editors will be further reviewed by the Ethics Advisory Committee (EAC).
AI Writing Assistance Policy
ARR has adopted the ACL 2023 Policy on AI Writing Assistance. The policy introduces a new item in the responsible research checklist, where authors disclose use of AI assistance. Common cases that should / should not be disclosed are:
Uses that do not need to be disclosed:
- Assistance purely with the language of the paper, e.g., paraphrasing, spell-checking, or polishing the author’s original content, without suggesting new content.
- Short-form input assistance, e.g., smart compose in google docs, which generates a short continuation of text.
- Literature search, e.g., to identify relevant literature, which authors then read, discuss, and cite appropriately.
Uses that need to be disclosed:
- Low-novelty text, e.g., producing a description of a widely known concept. Specify where such text was used, and convince the reviewers that the generation was checked to be accurate and is accompanied by relevant and appropriate citations (e.g., using block quotes for verbatim copying). If the generation copies text verbatim from existing work, the authors need to acknowledge all relevant citations: both the source of the text used and the source of the idea(s).
- New ideas. If the model outputs read to the authors as new research ideas, that would deserve co-authorship or acknowledgement from a human colleague, and that the authors then developed themselves (e.g. topics to discuss, framing of the problem) - we suggest acknowledging the use of the model, and checking for known sources for any such ideas to acknowledge them as well. Most likely, they came from other people’s work.
- New ideas + new text: a contributor of both ideas and their execution seems like the definition of a co-author, which the models cannot be. While the norms around the use of generative AI in research are being established, we would discourage such use in ARR submissions. If you choose to go down this road, you are welcome to make the case to the reviewers that this should be allowed, and that the new content is in fact correct, coherent, original and does not have missing citations.
- Code writing assistants. Acknowledge the use of such systems and the scope thereof, e.g. in the README files accompanying the code attachments or repositories.
In all cases, authors are responsible for the correctness of their methods, results, and writing. Authors should check for potential plagiarism, both of text and code.
Authors are required to discuss the limitations of their work in a dedicated section titled “Limitations”. This section should be included at the end of the paper, before the references, and it will not count toward the page limit. This includes both, long and short papers. Note, prior to the December 2023 cycle, this was optional.
Authors may withdraw their submission at any time. However, a submission that is withdrawn more than 48 hours after the submission deadline may not be resubmitted until the second subsequent ARR cycle, so withdrawing after this time requires contacting the action editors.
As indicated on the submission form, submitting to ARR comes with the requirement of accepting to review if asked to. We appreciate all the engagement of reviewers and AEs who are providing a crucial service to the community, which will benefit authors in their research: The success of peer review crucially depends on authors reviewing submissions by others. Hence, ARR will not be able to guarantee reviews of papers of authors who fail to fulfill their reviewer duties.
- AEs (and SACs) will not be asked to review new papers on top of their ARR duties (they might be asked to work on resubmissions of papers they already AEed/reviewed).
- There are of course legitimate reasons for one to suddenly be unavailable to review, and we will understand these.
- ARR has implemented a load balance check across cycles, so that reviewers are not overwhelmed with reviewing requests. The total load is limited to a certain level (around 8) over the past 3 months, so if you have many assignments over the past 1-2 ARR cycles you will have fewer (or even no assignments) in the current ARR cycle.
ARR provides a submission checklist. The checklist is intended as a reminder to help authors improve the quality of their papers.
Paper Submission and Templates
Paper submissions must use the official ACL style templates, which are available here (Latex and Word). Please follow the paper formatting guidelines general to “*ACL” conferences available here. Authors may not modify these style files or use templates designed for other conferences.
Submissions that do not conform to the required styles, including paper size, margin width, and font size restrictions, will be rejected without review.
Optional Supplementary Materials: Appendices, Software, and Data
ARR encourages the submission of these supplementary materials to improve the reproducibility of results and to enable authors to provide additional information that does not fit in the paper. Supplementary materials may include appendices, software, or data. For example, pre-processing decisions, model parameters, feature templates, lengthy proofs or derivations, pseudocode, sample system inputs/outputs, and other details that are necessary for the exact replication of the work described in the paper can be put into appendices. However, if the pseudo-code, or derivations, or model specifications are an important part of the contribution, or if they are important for the reviewers to assess the technical correctness of the work, they should be a part of the main paper, and not appear in appendices. Reviewers are not required to consider material in appendices.
Appendices should come after the references in the submitted pdf, but do not count towards the page limit. Software should be submitted as a single .tgz or .zip archive, and data as a separate single .tgz or .zip archive. Supplementary materials must be fully anonymized to preserve the two-way anonymized reviewing policy.