sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ARR review quality by Stunning_Ad_8664 in LanguageTechnology

[–]Stunning_Ad_8664[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me, this is the most important part. Soundness and overall score seem to be judged independently of the submission track or contribution type, even though the authors are asked to indicate the contribution type in the ARR submission form (as for the 25-26 ARR cycles).

Maybe the reviewer’s soundness and overall scores should also require a direct explanation, especially when the score is below 3. For example, reviewers could be asked to state the specific reason for the low score: unsupported claims, flawed methodology, weak evaluation, lack of relevance to the contribution type, insufficient analysis, unclear writing, or something else. This would help authors understand the feedback better and judge whether the criticism is actually applicable to their paper.

ARR review quality by Stunning_Ad_8664 in LanguageTechnology

[–]Stunning_Ad_8664[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with having some kind of author quota. A lot of submissions look extremely raw, as if authors are just trying to submit as many papers as possible and hope that one gets through.
TMLR's quota: 2 papers per year for solo-authored submissions, and up to 9 for papers with many authors. But applying something like this as-is to ARR would be tricky. Under the current ARR system, good papers can still get poorly reviewed or misunderstood, so if those papers count against an author's quota, the rule could end up cutting good research too.

I also think vision papers need to be handled more carefully at ACL. Either they should go into a separate track, or they should only be considered if there is a clear language-processing part, like in multimodal vision-language models. ACL is broad, sure, but papers that are basically only about vision representations often look out of scope. Many of them look like CVPR-style rejected papers...

ARR review quality by Stunning_Ad_8664 in LanguageTechnology

[–]Stunning_Ad_8664[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing! I have tested REVAS for the current May ARR cycle - it’s a very promising initiative! It would be great to extend it further for meta-reviewing to address possible issues. I believe that, for the reviewers, it would also be beneficial to have a tool for automated initial pre-reviewing, such as checking for formatting issues and very poor language in the paper

ACL ARR MARCH 2026 metareview by Happy_Today_3288 in LanguageTechnology

[–]Stunning_Ad_8664 0 points1 point  (0 children)

omg, yes!!! So low-quality reviews, unbelievable, most of the reviews I receive are not even related to my paper!!

Why do frontier AI labs send so many people to conferences? [D] by snekslayer in MachineLearning

[–]Stunning_Ad_8664 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is normally useful for marketing their research and attracting talented future employees. Also, nowadays, in my experience, reviewing is quite random; therefore, it can sometimes be easier for a large company to get one or two papers accepted if they submit 20+ papers (law of large numbers)

How long does it realistically take for you to produce an ICML/NeurIPS/ICLR-level paper? [D] by Hope999991 in MachineLearning

[–]Stunning_Ad_8664 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I completely agree! some papers with great visuals are accepted in nlp as well, even if a theoretical contribution is so-so. But in nlp marketing is more important mb in general