ACs/SACs (other);ac should read paper
ACs/SACs (other);decrease arbitrariness / increase diversity of ac/sac selection
ACs/SACs (other);define roles of (s)acs
ACs/SACs (other);how to become ac?
ACs/SACs (other);increase (s)ac diversity
ACs/SACs (other);increase ac seniority
ACs/SACs (other);no acs, just sacs
ARR (other);fully test arr system before launch
ARR (other);against new arr roles
ARR (other);any decision on arr should be democratic
ARR (other);arr alienates from acl
ARR (other);arr bad for diversity
ARR (other);arr decisions improperly influenced
ARR (other);arr excludes interdisciplinary research
ARR (other);arr good for authors
ARR (other);arr harms diversity
ARR (other);arr is not a helpful resource for pcs
ARR (other);arr not timely
ARR (other);arr not transparent
ARR (other);arr too complex
ARR (other);arr too stressful
ARR (other);communicate plan for arr
ARR (other);hire more staff, not only for arr
ARR (other);improve arr tech support
ARR (other);pre-arr system for eacl/aacl
ARR (other);publish arr 'decisions' on papers
COIs;allow authors to enter cois
COIs;ensure that cois are uptodate
COIs;improve coi detection (acknowledgments)
COIs;make cois private
anonymity;abolish anonymity policy
anonymity;ban arxiv
anonymity;for anonymous open review
blinding;allow reviewers to unblind themselves
blinding;blind (s)acs to reviewers
blinding;blind reviewers to each other
blinding;for double blind
blinding;introduce new completely open, "no-blinding" conference
communication;improve communication
communication;improve communication (use less email)
communication;improve communication about arr problems
communication;improve communication with authors
conferences (other);arr and legacy should have same deadline for a conference
conferences (other);arr is the only way to scale our conferences
conferences (other);arr only for conferences
conferences (other);differentiate tier 1 and tier 2 conferences
conferences (other);equal spacing of conferences
conferences (other);for diversity of conferences
conferences (other);fundamental flaw in arr : papers are submitted for conferences
conferences (other);if arr continues, there should be only one conference, potentially with several instances
conferences (other);increase number of acl conferences
conferences (other);make conference pc honorary role
conferences (other);make conferences more inclusive (lrec model)
conferences (other);publish papers before conference
conferences (other);reduce in limbo times by increasing number of conferences
conferences (other);reduce the number of conferences
cycles;against 8 week cycle
cycles;cycle too short
cycles;for 12 week cycle
cycles;for 6 week cycle
cycles;for 8 week cycle
cycles;for 8 week cycle (overlapping)
cycles;for 8 week cycle or longer
cycles;for longer cycles
cycles;for short review cycle
cycles;make a findings decision in each cycle, separate from conference decision
cycles;short cycle length means to much load on meta/reviewers
data collection;concerned about terms of use of data collection
data collection;for data collection
data collection;improve data collection interface
data collection;data collection should be opt-in, not opt-out
desk rejects;against expanding desk rejects
desk rejects;expand desk rejects
desk rejects;for paper triage
desk rejects;soften desk reject
discussion/interactivity;against sac interactions with acs and reviewers to avoid inefficiency and confusion
discussion/interactivity;better ac/sac-pc interaction
discussion/interactivity;for author response
discussion/interactivity;for discussion
discussion/interactivity;for discussion, ac-sac
discussion/interactivity;for discussion, author-reviewer
discussion/interactivity;for discussion, author-reviewer and/or reviewer-ac
discussion/interactivity;for discussion, author-reviewer and/or reviewer-meta/reviewer
discussion/interactivity;for discussion, reviewer-ac
discussion/interactivity;for meta/reviewer discussion
discussion/interactivity;for reviewer discussion
discussion/interactivity;give reviewers time to revise based on author response
ethics;incorporate community feedback on ethics/reproducibility
ethics;make handling ethics easier
ethics;track ethical breaches in the infrastructure (for both authors and reviewers)
general;adopt iclr model
general;adopt icwsm model
general;adopt tacl model
general;against "permanent" workshops like sigmorphon
general;against arr
general;against findings
general;against integrated system
general;against rolling review
general;concrete proposal for how to proceed with arr: review, analysis, proposal, community consultation, decision
general;covid probable reason for reviewer behavior
general;for arr
general;for arr and for pre-arr system
general;for audit of arr
general;for infrastructure
general;for integrated system
general;for kummerfeld proposal
general;for rolling review
general;in favor of infrastructure, but what exactly is part of it?
general;increase acceptance rate for findings
general;proposal: 2 week review, two week author response, two week final decision
general;return to pre-arr system
general;thank you to arr team
journals;invest in journals not in arr
journals;move acl's focus from conferences to journals
journals;put resources into tacl
journals;turn acl anthology into a journal
mentoring;against arr mentoring
mentoring;against reviewer training
mentoring;for mentoring
mentoring;for reviewer training
mentoring;mentor area chairs
mentoring;opinion about mentoring depends on implementation details
meta/reviews specific to conferences;against decoupling of meta/reviews
meta/reviews specific to conferences;for decoupling reviews and conferences
meta/reviews specific to conferences;for per-conference reviewing
meta/reviews specific to conferences;link meta/reviews to acceptance
meta/reviews specific to conferences;link meta/reviews to conferences
meta/reviews specific to conferences;separate reviewing for each conference
miscellaneous;acl is welcoming to new researchers
miscellaneous;against emphasis on career concerns
miscellaneous;anywhere on earth time is confusing
miscellaneous;change citation style
miscellaneous;focus acl on "computation and language", encourage linguists to leave
miscellaneous;for bidding
miscellaneous;for fte
miscellaneous;get nihar shah to give a tutorial
miscellaneous;horrible experience with special theme
miscellaneous;improve website
miscellaneous;increase acl paper length
miscellaneous;march delay unacceptable
miscellaneous;maximize agency
miscellaneous;one fte not enough
miscellaneous;reduce online registration cost
miscellaneous;use open research knowlege graph
openreview;against openreview
openreview;for openreview
openreview;improve openreview interface
openreview;link all versions in openreview
opt-out/opt-in;against easy opt-out
opt-out/opt-in;against opt-out for all authors
opt-out/opt-in;fix opt-out
opt-out/opt-in;for easy opt-out
opt-out/opt-in;for opt-in
opt-out/opt-in;for opt-in because of interdiscipinary authors
opt-out/opt-in;for opt-out
opt-out/opt-in;improve interface for opt-in / opt-out
opt-out/opt-in;opt-out unfair to interdisciplinary and junior researchers
opt-out/opt-in;sell opt-out better by contacting each author right after submission
reviewer load;against review load proportional to submissions
reviewer load;arr does not decrease review load
reviewer load;arr increases review load
reviewer load;arr review load too high
reviewer load;equal spacing of community review load
reviewer load;improve interface for load management
reviewer load;increase load of senior reviewers
reviewer load;increase number of / load of senior reviewers
reviewer load;load management important
reviewer load;make arr review load predictable
reviewer load;monthly reviewing increases review load?
reviewer load;need statistics on (increased?) load due to arr to make any decisions
reviewer load;reduce review load for junior reviewers
reviewer load;review load proportional to submissions
reviewer performance;reviewer performance: flag bad reviewers
reviewer performance;reviewer performance: rate, track, act upon
reviewer performance;reviewer performance: track how much authors review
reviewer pool;good reviewers do not get invited
reviewer pool;senior people do not get invited
reviewing (general);acl reviewing is too complex
reviewing (general);against 4 reviews
reviewing (general);against commitment of partially reviewed papers
reviewing (general);against junior reviewers
reviewing (general);against structured review forms
reviewing (general);against year-round reviewing
reviewing (general);appeals process for bad reviews
reviewing (general);arr bad fit for interdisciplinary reviewers
reviewing (general);arr should sign up reviewers for a specific conference
reviewing (general);change "commitment" into "consideration-for", i.e., revision and reviewing in parallel to commitment
reviewing (general);concerns about commitment of partially reviewed papers
reviewing (general);create reviewer certification program
reviewing (general);disconnect between review scores and acceptance decision
reviewing (general);do not change score definitions
reviewing (general);do not force non-authors to review
reviewing (general);emergency reviewing is too stressful
reviewing (general);enforce reviewer diversity
reviewing (general);ensure each paper has senior reviewer
reviewing (general);favor/disfavor papers by good/bad reviewers for acceptance
reviewing (general);financial rewards for good reviewers and authors
reviewing (general);fire late (meta)reviewers
reviewing (general);first time authors should not review
reviewing (general);fix late reviews
reviewing (general);fix random removal of reviewers
reviewing (general);fix reviewer signup process
reviewing (general);for 4 reviews
reviewing (general);for authors as mandatory reviewers
reviewing (general);for more informative metareviews: potential for major conference acceptance, long or short etc
reviewing (general);for paper updates during review process
reviewing (general);for reviewer diversity
reviewing (general);for subreviewers
reviewing (general);force authors to review
reviewing (general);force senior people to review
communication;improve communication between area chair and reviewers
communication;improve communication with reviewers
communication;improve communication with reviewers (scores)
communication;improve communication, reviewer-(s)ac
reviewing (general);improve emergency reviewing
reviewing (general);improve interface for reviewer assignment
reviewing (general);improve interface for reviewers
reviewing (general);improve management of junior reviewers
reviewing (general);incentivize reviewers
reviewing (general);increase reviewer diversity
reviewing (general);let meta/reviewers rate each other
reviewing (general);make clear how to reach arr (for authors, reviewers etc)
reviewing (general);make reviewer stats available
reviewing (general);many authors are not qualified reviewers
reviewing (general);max of 4 papers per reviewer per cycle
reviewing (general);need new reviewing criteria
reviewing (general);nlp reviewers do not have sufficient ml expertise
reviewing (general);no editing of reviews after release
reviewing (general);no reviewers from outside nlp
reviewing (general);pay reviewers
reviewing (general);penalize bad reviewers
reviewing (general);poor arr meta/review quality
reviewing (general);predict need for emergency reviewers and recruit accordingly
reviewing (general);previous reviews are often ignored
reviewing (general);prohibit authors from reviewing competing papers
reviewing (general);prohibit authors from reviewing for a conference they submit to
reviewing (general);publish meta/reviews
reviewing (general);release reviews earlier
reviewing (general);remove reviewers who guess author identity
reviewing (general);reviewer management too aggressive
reviewing (general);reviewing record should be factor in paper recommendation
reviewing (general);senior people do not have time for reviewing
reviewing (general);senior reviewers are often bad reviewers
reviewing (general);short/long papers should have short/long review forms
reviewing (general);the community does not have enough competent reviewers for all submissions
reviewing (general);too much discrepancy between reviews and metareview
reviewing (general);use same scale for meta/reviews
reviewing (general);video conference for new (meta)reviewers
rolling review;martin haspelmath on revise-and-resubmit: https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2333
rolling review;against revise-and-resubmit
rolling review;ban resubmission of bad papers
rolling review;consider frequent deadlines without revise-and-resubmit
rolling review;for multi-conference rolling review
rolling review;for revise-and-resubmit
rolling review;for single-conference rolling review
rolling review;punish new submissions that are resubmissions
rolling review;shorten review period for resubmissions
rolling review;utility of revise-and-resubmit unclear
sticky reviews;against sticky meta/reviews
sticky reviews;for sticky meta/reviews
sticky reviews;for sticky meta/reviews (keep old reviews even when reviewers are changed)
sticky reviews;for stricter sticky meta/reviews
sticky reviews;soften sticky meta/reviews
submission-reviewer matching;improve interface for reviewer matching
submission-reviewer matching;against fully automatic matching
submission-reviewer matching;improve matching
submission-reviewer matching;measure quality of matching
submissions and acceptance (other);allow double submissions both within arr and arr/softconf
submissions and acceptance (other);charge submission fees
submissions and acceptance (other);distribute submissions over year
submissions and acceptance (other);double submissions to softconf / arr confusing
submissions and acceptance (other);emnlp submission modalities were poorly communicated
submissions and acceptance (other);enforce higher submission standards, e.g., punish authors who hide information
submissions and acceptance (other);for workshop submissions to arr
submissions and acceptance (other);incentivize early submission
submissions and acceptance (other);limit submissions per person
submissions and acceptance (other);make all acceptance decisions for the next conference
submissions and acceptance (other);make arr the sole submission system
submissions and acceptance (other);several rounds of acceptance
submissions and acceptance (other);shorten time between submission and acceptance
submissions and acceptance (other);time from submission to acceptance is too long
survey/future-of-reviewing document;decisions should be made based on evidence and research not based on surveys
survey/future-of-reviewing document;future of reviewing document should have defined the roles of (senior) area chair / action editor
survey/future-of-reviewing document;problems with announcement of survey
survey/future-of-reviewing document;survey confusing
survey/future-of-reviewing document;survey does not include masters students
survey/future-of-reviewing document;survey question about extending arr functionality poorly designed
survey/future-of-reviewing document;survey unclear about partially reviewed papers
survey/future-of-reviewing document;the survey should have explained what an action editor is
tracks;against current set of tracks used at conferences
tracks;against tracks
tracks;do not use arr for special themes/tracks
tracks;for partial tracks
tracks;for tracks
tracks;for tracks, but only for a subset
tracks;use keywords instead of tracks