ACL Review Process

Use this to model where an ACL paper actually is and who decides what next. ACL decoupled reviewing from the conference: ARR produces the review package; the conference consumes it. Confirm current mechanics at aclrollingreview.org/reviewing, since cycle structure has changed repeatedly (most recently to 10-week cycles in 2025).

The pipeline, stage by stage

1. ARR cycle intake: submission on OpenReview to a dated cycle (e.g.,

ARR January 2026); checks for format, Limitations, checklist, anonymity.

1. Review: at least three reviewers score and write reviews.
2. Author response + discussion: authors reply; reviewers discuss and may

update reviews (see acl-author-response).

1. Meta-review: the action editor / area chair synthesizes reviews into a

meta-review with a recommendation. Notably, ARR senior area chairs do not make accept/reject recommendations — that authority sits with the venue.

1. Commitment: authors choose whether and where to send the finished

package — ACL, or another \ACL venue accepting that cycle.

1. Venue decision: the conference's senior area chairs and program chairs

read reviews + meta-review and decide: main conference, Findings, or reject.

1. Ethics branch: papers flagged during review go to an ethics committee,

which can require revisions or recommend rejection on ACL Code of Ethics grounds independent of technical merit.

Who decides what

| Actor | Controls | Cannot do | |---|---|---| | Reviewer | Review text, scores, discussion updates | Accept or reject anything | | AC / action editor | Meta-review, review-issue handling | Bind the conference's decision | | Author | Response, revision, where/whether to commit | Change reviews after the cycle closes | | Venue SACs + PCs | Main/Findings/reject from the ARR package | Re-run the reviewing itself | | Ethics committee | Ethics-based conditions or rejection | Judge technical contribution |

Outcomes and what they mean

• Main conference: full acceptance with a presentation slot.
• Findings of ACL: peer-reviewed, Anthology-published acceptance for solid

work that missed the main-program bar; typically without a main-stage oral. Citation-wise Findings papers perform respectably — treat it as a real publication decision, not a consolation to appeal.

• Reject at commitment: the ARR reviews remain attached to the paper's

history; a stronger resubmission through a later cycle is the designed path.

Reading your review package strategically

• Weigh the meta-review over individual scores: it is the document venue

chairs actually read.

• A package with one detailed negative review and a meta-review that endorses

the objection rarely survives commitment — fix the objection in a new cycle instead of shopping the package to another venue unchanged.

• Conversely, mediocre scores with a meta-review noting resolved concerns can

be worth committing: the venue decision is made on the whole record.

• A meta-review score at the floor triggers the resubmission constraint:

within six months, only a wholesale revision avoids desk rejection.

Venue-shopping within the ARR ecosystem

The same review package can be committed to exactly one venue at a time, but a rejected or withheld package can target a later conference (EMNLP, EACL, NAACL, AACL) whose commitment window accepts that cycle. Sequence deliberately: each conference publishes which ARR cycles it accepts, and reviews age — a package built on a two-cycle-old baseline set gets punished at commitment.

Anatomy of one 10-week cycle

text
week 0      submission deadline (AoE)
weeks 1-2   desk checks; reviewer + AC assignment
weeks 3-5   reviewing
week 5      reviews released -> author response (a few days)
week 6      reviewer discussion; reviews may be updated
weeks 7-8   meta-review written
~week 10    package complete -> commitment window for eligible venues

Offsets drift by cycle; the January 2026 cycle ran Jan 5 → reviews by early March → ACL 2026 commitment March 14. Always re-derive from the current dates page.

Reading reviewer language for what it predicts

• "The contribution is unclear" from two reviewers predicts a meta-review

hedge — fix framing in the response, not just individual complaints.

• "Missing citation X, Y, Z" alone rarely sinks a paper; the same list

attached to "novelty over X is marginal" usually does.

• A confident low-score review with factual errors is the best target for

a review-issue flag plus a surgical rebuttal.

• Uniform middling scores with short reviews often mean poor reviewer fit;

at commitment, venue chairs weigh the meta-review's own reading more — make sure the response arms the AC with the paper's best case.

Confidentiality and conduct boundaries

• Review content is confidential to the cycle; quoting reviews publicly

(even anonymized) before decisions violates ARR expectations.

• Contacting reviewers or guessing identities is out of bounds; all

communication flows through the OpenReview thread and the AC.

• Authors are bound by the ACL code of ethics throughout — including in

how the author response characterizes reviewers' competence.

• Deadlines inside the cycle (response, discussion) are short and rarely

extended; plan around them rather than requesting exceptions.

Output format

text
[Stage] cycle-intake / under review / response / meta-review / commit-window / venue decision / ethics review
[Package strength] <meta-review thrust + score pattern>
[Commit recommendation] commit to ACL / hold for revision / target sibling venue
[Ethics exposure] <flag risk and mitigation>
[Next actor to influence] <reviewer via discussion / AC via response / venue via commitment note>