I reached out to Anna Rogers, and I also sent an email to editors and support 😀
It would be very strange to desk-reject our paper, even though I volunteered and I already review regularly for top conferences and journals without any issue
- This policy ensures that ARR reviewers are familiar with the expectations in ACL venues, which may differ from ML/CS conferences. As authors, we submit to specific venues expecting to be judged by its standards, not some other venue's
- EiCs consider cases individually
Furthermore, the requirements in the submission form for the ACL cycle are actually relaxed compared to previous cycles: we now allow nominating non-authors, as long as they agree and will do the job.
to me, this is really a strange point: what's the incentive for a non-author to provide review for a colleague? are we going to see pp exchanging "reviewing debt credits" on some obscure discord channels? isn't this going to favor pp with a large network of pp owing them something?
I remember once, a colleague of mine lost a family member right during an acl reviewing period and we spontaneously offered to review their papers. The chairs agreed and all. Fine. After that we discussed and many colleagues from abroad told me they would have never offered this.
We introduced this to accommodate large labs. If all reviews have to go through the PI, there may be too many to mentor. But such labs may have enough postdocs who are not necessarily coauthors on student papers.
Comments
It would be very strange to desk-reject our paper, even though I volunteered and I already review regularly for top conferences and journals without any issue
Finger crossed 🤞
- This policy ensures that ARR reviewers are familiar with the expectations in ACL venues, which may differ from ML/CS conferences. As authors, we submit to specific venues expecting to be judged by its standards, not some other venue's
- EiCs consider cases individually