EMNLP 2021 Blog

Program interactive graph

Fri, 05 Nov 2021 00:00:00 GMT

Interactive graph representing the entire EMNLP 2021 program, including the paper titles, abstracts, authors and the geographical locations of the authors. (credits to ML@GT).

Best Paper Awards

Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT

The Best Paper Awards aims to recognise the most outstanding papers appearing at EMNLP 2021. We considered three categories for the main conference papers, Best Long Paper, Best Short Paper, and Outstanding Papers, as well as the Best Demo Paper. The result is as follows:

Best Long Paper

Visually Grounded Reasoning across Languages and Cultures
Fangyu Liu, Emanuele Bugliarello, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Siva Reddy, Nigel Collier and Desmond Elliott

Best Short Paper

CHoRaL: Collecting Humor Reaction Labels from Millions of Social Media Users
Zixiaofan Yang, Shayan Hooshmand and Julia Hirschberg

Outstanding Papers

MindCraft: Theory of Mind Modeling for Situated Dialogue in Collaborative Tasks
Cristian-Paul Bara, Sky CH-Wang and Joyce Chai

SituatedQA: Incorporating Extra-Linguistic Contexts into QA
Michael Zhang and Eunsol Choi

When Attention Meets Fast Recurrence: Training Language Models with Reduced Compute
Tao Lei

Shortcutted Commonsense: Data Spuriousness in Deep Learning of Commonsense Reasoning
Ruben Branco, Antonio Branco, Joao Antonio Rodrigues and Joao Ricardo Silva

For the selection of the papers above, we thank our Best Paper Award committee, who selected amongst papers put forward by area chairs and senior area chairs (with help from reviewers):

Luke Zettlemoyer, University of Washington and Facebook, USA (chair)
Raffaella Bernardi, University of Trento, Italy
Helen Meng, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Pascale Fung, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
Min-Yen Kan, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Mausam, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India
Heng Ji, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Jianfeng Gao, Microsoft, USA
Ivan Titov, University of Edinburgh, UK
Mikel Forcada, Universitat d'Alacant, Spain

Best Demonstration Paper

Datasets: A Community Library for Natural Language Processing

Quentin Lhoest, Albert Villanova del Moral, Yacine Jernite, Abhishek Thakur, Patrick von Platen, Suraj Patil, Julien Chaumond, Mariama Drame, Julien Plu, Lewis Tunstall, Joe Davison, Mario Šaško, Gunjan Chhablani, Bhavitvya Malik, Simon Brandeis, Teven Le Scao, Victor Sanh, Canwen Xu, Nicolas Patry, Angelina McMillan-Major, Philipp Schmid, Sylvain Gugger, Clément Delangue, Théo Matussière, Lysandre Debut, Stas Bekman, Pierric Cistac, Thibault Goehringer, Victor Mustar, François Lagunas, Alexander Rush and Thomas Wolf

We congratulate all authors!

PC Chairs Lucia Specia, Scott Yih, Xuanjing Huang

Call: EMNLP 2021 Live Tweeting

Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT

Live tweeting EMNLP 2021 // Author Option to Opt-Out

We are seeking EMNLP 2021 participants to live tweet presentations with the goal of raising the visibility of EMNLP 2021 talks across languages. Specifically, we envision live microblogging of both pre-recorded presentations (between when they become available and the end of the conference) and live sessions (from participants who are attending the conference onsite).

Recognizing that bilingual live microblogging (listening in one language, writing in another) is a more difficult task, we nonetheless hope that the pre-recorded format might make it possible.

By coordinating community live tweeting, we hope to increase coverage of EMNLP 2021 talks. In particular, we aim at highlighting the works coming from under-represented countries so as to broaden participation in EMNLP and our associated community. Your posts will be shared/retweeted by the official conference account on Twitter and you will gain visibility in the NLP community.

If you are interested in participating, please fill in the following online form by November 4th, 2021.

The form asks you:

Your name, surname, email address and country
The language(s) you would like to live tweet in
Your Twitter handle
EMNLP 2021 areas (two or more) you are interested in covering

The following guide on live tweeting by Rachael Tatman could be a useful reference.

Author Option to Opt-Out

If for any reason, an EMNLP 2021 author would prefer NOT to have their presentation live tweeted, we ask you to fill in the following online form by November 2nd, 2021: https://forms.gle/TU26RsJKCfXvHCxq9.

Conference and Presentation Formats

Tue, 05 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT

In this blog post, we provide more information on the hybrid format of the conference from a technical programme perspective, which includes information on the formats of presentation for main conference oral and poster sessions. We have received many questions on the differences between attending in person or remotely, and on the advantages of attending in person. With this blog post, we hope to answer these and other questions, as well as to reassure participants that a programme in hybrid format will cater for both types of participants.

Hybrid conference format

This format means participants (be them authors, invited speakers, or attendees without a paper) can participate either in person, i.e., in Punta Cana, or remotely. Together with Underline, we are working on the agenda to be able to offer a good conference experience regardless of your choice as a participant. In addition, we are preparing for the facts that some participants will only be able to make a decision on whether they will attend in person very late, and that participants may have connection issues. This means that:

We are requesting authors to pre-record their talks and prepare virtual posters, regardless of whether they are planning to attend in person or remotely.
We will offer all authors the option to present live, either in person or remotely (via zoom). If presenters are not able or willing to present live, we will broadcast the pre-recorded video (which will have the exact same duration as the live session). We will ask authors to attend the session live to take and answer questions. The live (or pre-recorded presentations) will be shown to local participants as well as to remote participants.

Oral vs poster presentations (main conference papers)

All authors will have received an email with the decision on whether their paper was selected to be presented as a poster or orally. The decision between oral and poster presentations was made with the help of Senior Area Chairs based on our perception on the best format for presentation of each individual paper. This decision was not based on the quality/merit of the papers: all accepted papers are considered to be of high quality, but different papers benefit from different presentation formats.

Oral presentations (main conference papers)

Amongst papers selected to be presented orally, we will have the following slots for pre-recorded and live presentation: Long papers will be given a 12-minute presentation slot (+3 minutes for questions), while short papers will be given an 8-minute presentation slot (+2 minutes for questions). As an author, you will have received detailed instructions on how to do that by email. Let us know if you haven’t received the instructions. We also ask oral paper authors to prepare a virtual poster, as well as a paper poster if attending the conference in person. A poster for oral papers is optional, i.e., authors can decide if they want to present their paper also as a virtual (and/or paper) poster. Because this year’s EMNLP conference is bigger than ever, we have limited time for questions during the presentation sessions. The poster session is meant to allow for participants to interact further and ask any questions that they were not able to during the limited session time. See item below for details on the format of the poster.
We can thus have the following combinations of presenters and attendees for oral presentations:

In-person live presentations to in-person participants, which will be also streamed to remote participants.
Remote live presentations streamed to in-person and remote participants.
Remote pre-recorded presentations streamed to in-person and remote participants.

Poster presentations (main conference papers)

Amongst papers selected to be presented as posters, we request all authors to prepare a virtual poster. In addition, for authors who are planning to attend the conference in person, we ask them to also prepare a paper poster. For any given poster (including those prepared for papers presented orally), it can thus be presented in:

One paper poster presentation for those attending the conference in person (presenters and attendees). In-person paper posters will not be streamed to remote participants.
One additional virtual poster session, where posters will be presented using Gathertown. The idea is to maximise the number of participants who will have access to posters.

As an author, you will have received detailed instructions on how to upload your poster by email. Let us know if you haven’t received the instructions. For virtual posters, a single pdf file with no more than 20MB needs to be uploaded. For paper posters, the size of the poster boards at the conference site is 92-inch (233.68 cm) in width and 46-inch (116.84 cm) in height. Please make your poster in the landscape orientation with the size no bigger than the poster board.

Findings papers

For both long and short Findings papers, we are requesting a pre-recorded video, which will be made available in the programme. The maximum length of the recording is 6 minutes for long papers, and 3 minutes for short paper.

Pre-recorded videos for Findings paper will be grouped by track and added to the virtual platform as a remote session so that participants can easily find the videos. We will not have live presentation sessions for Findings papers in the main conference (remote or in person). We have also instructed authors interested in presenting their work in one of the workshops at EMNLP 2021 to indicate that. As an author, you should have received detailed instructions on how to do that by email. Let us know if you haven’t received the instructions.

ARR papers

ARR papers accepted to the main conference or Findings of EMNLP will be published in the EMNLP 2021 proceedings. They will be treated as regular EMNLP papers and follow the exact same rules as above.

Computational Linguistics (CL) Journal and TACL papers

Papers recently accepted for the CL and TACL journals whose authors decided to present at EMNLP will receive a slot depending on their choice between oral (12 minutes) and poster presentation.

Conference schedule

A high-level version of the schedule is available on underline (https://2021.emnlp.org/program). The detailed schedule will be published October 4th. We are doing our best to accommodate for time-zones to give all authors the chance to participate live in their sessions, be it in person or remotely.

Registration details

Details on the registration (for in person or remote attendance) are available on the website: https://2021.emnlp.org/registration.

Format for workshops and co-located events

Please refer to their websites for specific information as this blog post only applies to the programme for the Main Conference and Findings papers.

Invitation letter to attend the conference

If you are planning to attend the conference in person and need an invitation letter to apply for a visa, please check the conference registration website and fill out the form to request such a letter (https://2021.emnlp.org/registration).

FAQ for the EMNLP 2021 Decision Process

Tue, 31 Aug 2021 00:00:00 GMT

In this blog post, we provide more details on the process we followed with FAQ (adapted from the ACL-IJCNLP 2021 blog post) to answer to a wide range of questions authors may have. Please read this carefully, as most questions we get by email are answered here.

Q1.What types of decisions were made for papers?

Following the process from recent EMNLP and ACL conferences, the Programme Committee (PC) chairs based their decisions on the recommendations from technical tracks, combined with the recommendations from the Ethics Committee (EC) chairs, which led to five categories for the accept/reject decisions:

1. Accept-to-Main-Conference
2. Conditional-Accept-to-Main-Conference
3. Accept-to-Findings
4. Conditional-Accept-to-Findings
5. Reject

Q2. What was the process followed by the EC?

Reviewers were asked to flag papers that could have ethical issues (check the Ethics Policy section in our CFP. 272 papers were flagged as such. For any paper that the technical reviewing committee expressed ethical concerns, the paper was sent to the EC (203 papers). The EC went over the papers to determine whether a full EC review would be required. If so, the paper received one or two ethics reviews from additional reviewers. The ethics reviews are treated differently from technical reviews, and they do NOT impact the overall scores of the paper. For any paper that is recommended to be accepted into the main conference or Findings based on technical reviews and that had been referred to the EC, the EC chairs have recommended one of the following to the PC chairs: (a) accept (12 EMNLP, 11 Findings), (b) conditional accept (the ethical issues must be addressed in the camera-ready version; 17 EMNLP, 20 Findings), and (c) reject due to ethical issues (1 paper).

Q3. What will happen to the conditionally accepted papers?

All conditionally accepted papers have comments regarding ethics in the meta-review, as well as one or two additional reviews that will appear at the bottom of all other reviews. These reviews state the changes needed to be made by the authors in the camera-ready version. The authors need to submit the camera-ready version by September 9, 2021, the same deadline for the papers without conditions. In addition, the authors need to provide a short document that explains how they have made the changes requested by the EC meta-reviews. The document can be either a plain text file or a PDF file, and needs to be uploaded to the Final Submission Page. This explanatory document will not be made public; it is just to expedite the conditional acceptance workflow for the EC’s review process. The EC chairs will go over this document and check the camera-ready version to determine whether the required changes have been included in the camera-ready version. If so, the condition will be removed, the paper will be accepted to the main conference or Findings, and the status of having been conditionally accepted will not be publicly visible. If not, the paper will be rejected. If you have any questions about EC reviews or the changes required by EC, you can contact the EMNLP 2021 Ethics Chairs (Margot Mieskes: margot.mieskes at h-da.de and Christopher Potts: cgpotts at stanford.edu).

Q4. The AC recommends ‘Accept’. Why is my paper still rejected?

AC recommendation is just one of many factors used in the final decision. For instance, some ACs disagree with reviewers: they may recommend Accept when some reviewers insist on the paper being rejected, or the other way around. PCs also look at other factors such as author rebuttal, three reviews, the discussion in the discussion board, SAC recommendations, EC recommendations (for flagged papers), and the submission itself.

Q5. My overall recommendation scores are 4, 3.5, 3.5. Why is my paper still rejected (or accepted to Findings, but not to the main conference)?

Review scores are just one of many factors considered by PCs. For instance, some ACs point out that in some reviews, the overall recommendation scores do not match the reviews (e.g., a largely negative review with a score of 3.5), but reviewers do not change their reviews or overall recommendation scores for various reasons, even when prompted by ACs. In that case, PCs read reviews, AC recommendation and SAC recommendation in order to reach a final decision.

Q6. My reviews are largely positive, but the paper is rejected due to an ethical review. Does EC have the one-vote veto right?

No. EC recommendation is only one piece of information used in the final decision. The PCs make the final decision.

Q7. Where can we see revised reviews (or comments to our rebuttal)?

The reviews sent to authors on August 25 are the revised reviews. If reviewers had some comments to the rebuttal that they wanted the authors to see, they would include that in their revised reviews.

Q8. How come the reviews remain the same after the rebuttal?

Many reviewers used the discussion board at START and, after the reviewer/AC discussion, they decided to keep their original reviews because they were not convinced by the authors’ rebuttal.

Q9. After the rebuttal, some overall recommendation scores decreased. Why?

This is likely to be due to the reviewer/AC discussion. Some reviewers’ opinions could change due to the discussion or after reading authors’ rebuttal, so the scores can go up or down in the revised reviews. The change of the scores shows that the reviewers have read the author rebuttal. Reviewers were asked to revise their reviews to reflect their new opinion of the paper, but that might not always happen. Unfortunately, we cannot make the information in the discussion board available to the authors due to the nature of double-blind reviews.

Q10. Some reviewers (or the AC) misunderstood our paper. Can the decision be reconsidered?

If some (but not all) reviewers or the AC misunderstood your paper, the overall recommendation scores tended to vary a lot among reviewers or AC’s meta review would disagree with the three reviews. SACs and PCs paid special attention to such papers, and the final decision is the result of considering all the input including AC and SAC recommendations and the discussion board. We will not reconsider decisions unless there is a technical issue, such as the meta-review being for a different paper.

Q11. The AC raised some issues that were not found in the three reviews, which we could not address in the rebuttal period. We disagree with those points.

Diligent ACs often read the papers, especially when reviewers disagree. ACs can therefore point out issues that were not identified by the reviewers. Given their expertise in the area, AC recommendation was one of the factors for the final decision.

Q12. We received new reviews after the rebuttal process, and therefore could not respond to them.

Some reviewers were very late or didn’t complete their reviews before the deadline for rebuttals. We had to recruit additional (emergency) reviewers to help ensure that each paper would have at least 3 reviews before the end of the rebuttal process. This was achieved in the vast majority of cases, and in the few other cases we extended the rebuttal period to give the authors a chance to respond. However, in some cases the original reviewers ended up completing the reviews and submitting them after the rebuttal period. We did keep the fact that some authors did not get a chance to respond to these additional reviews in mind when making final decisions.

Q13. Some reviewers raised new issues in the revised reviews which we have no chance to respond to. Had they mentioned that in their original reviews, we could have addressed their concern.

It is not uncommon for new issues to be raised during the reviewers/AC discussion period, and reviewers can include such issues in their revised reviews. Given the short review cycle, it is impossible to have another round of author rebuttal after the discussion period. Nevertheless, as mentioned in Section 1, reviews are just one of many factors considered in the final decision.

Q14. My paper is marked as accepted to the main conference (or the Findings), but it includes ethical reviews and an ethical meta-review. Does that mean my paper is conditionally accepted instead?

If a flagged paper was determined by the EC that a full ethical review was necessary, the paper would get one or ethical reviews. If such a paper was accepted to the main conference or Findings, an ethical meta review would be added. Thus, having those reviews does not mean that the paper is conditionally accepted. If you want PCs to double-check for you, please email PCs with your submission ID.

Q15. Now that my paper has been accepted to the Findings, can I post it to arXiv.org and my personal website now?

Yes.

Q16. Can I make changes to the title in the camera-ready version?

Yes, changes to the title are allowed.

Q17. Where can we find the templates for the camera-ready version? Should my paper have an appendix?

You should use the same style file as for the initial submission, all you need is to remove the "review" option from the line \usepackage[review]{emnlp2021} to generate the final version. You can still have an appendix, but it should be added to the same PDF as the main paper.

Q18. I don’t see the final submission page. Why?

The Final Submission Page will be open by September 3rd, 2021 for authors to start uploading their camera-ready version.

Q19. What is the page limit for the camera-ready version of the paper?

You will have one extra page for that, 9 pages for long, and 5 pages for short papers, plus unlimited space for references and the impact statement. The same limit applies for Findings papers.

Q20. What criteria are used to determine whether a paper should be accepted to the main conference or Findings? Why some Findings papers have overall scores higher than some Main Conference papers?

Papers recommended for possible acceptance were ranked based on recommendations from reviewers, ACs and SACs. With the goal of keeping the standard acceptance rate (around 20-25%), these papers were then grouped into two categories: Accept for EMNLP and Accept for Findings, based on various criteria, such as substance and quality of contribution. Findings papers represent solid work that couldn’t be included in the main conference due to the low acceptance rate. Once more, the scores are only one of the many sources of information used for the decision.

Q21. Does Findings have its own ISBN or DOI?

We expect that Findings will grow with future conferences, and become a recognised and respected publication venue within the field. Currently, we do not have Findings indexed in Scopus and Web-of-Science etc. This is a complex process that can only be done after a few years from the start of the publication. We note that Findings is a peer-reviewed, competitive publication outlet, which should have significantly more weight than workshops or arXiv publications. In addition, many workshops are non-archival, whereas Findings is.

Of course, authors have the choice to withdraw from Findings and submit to another conference, or ARR, if they chose to do so. However, the fact that the paper only narrowly made it for EMNLP this time does not guarantee it will make it for a main conference if resubmitted, given that it will be reviewed independently, by another set of reviews, ACs, SACs and PCs.

Q22. Will Findings papers have some form of presentation / poster session in the main conference?

We will follow the procedure introduced by ACL-IJCNLP 21, where papers will be given a short slot for presentation at the main conference. An email with details will be sent to all authors soon.

Q23. Will Findings papers be included in the proceedings of the main conference?

No. There will be a separate volume for Findings papers, which will be included in the ACL anthology under “Findings of EMNLP”.

Q24. Will my paper be presented as Oral or Poster?

We will be in touch soon with further details for each paper.

Q25. The conference will be in a hybrid format. What does it mean for my paper?

The conference will have both in person and remote participation, both for authors and participants in general. Authors will have the choice to choose between presenting a paper in person or remotely. In all cases, talks will be pre-recorded as a back-up option. The details on the format are being finalised with Underline, we will let authors know soon. Make sure to fill out the form to indicate your preference.

Q26. My paper was submitted via ARR and accepted for EMNLP or Findings. Will it be treated differently?

No, the paper will be published in the respective proceedings as any other EMNLP/Findings paper. The only difference will be the final submission system, which for ARR papers will be OpenReview. The format of the ARR papers should be the same as EMNLP, so please use the EMNLP style files and instructions. The number of content pages is also the same: 9 for long papers, 5 for short papers.

Q27. I haven’t received my notification. How can I find out about the status of my paper?

Many emails bounced, probably because some authors’ mail servers do not accept such emails. Please log on to Softconf and click on your paper, click ‘Your Reviews’ and you will see not only the reviews but the status at the very top of the page.

The author response phase

Mon, 12 Jul 2021 00:00:00 GMT

The author response phase has begun and will end on 17 July, 2021 (anywhere on Earth). Authors now have a chance to view the draft reviews of their submissions, and, optionally, write a response. Detailed instructions and draft reviews have been emailed to the authors (if you submitted papers to EMNLP-2021, but didn’t receive the email, please remember to check your spam folder.)

To check the reviews and to submit your response, please login to the submission Website using your START account.

If you choose to respond to the reviews:

Remember that reviewing is double-blind.
Do not include any information in the response that can identify you or your co-authors.
Do not include any URLs in your response.
Use the response judiciously. If a reviewer has expressed uncertainty about an issue, or is making an incorrect assumption, or has misunderstood a point in the paper, please address these concerns in your author response.
There is no need to respond to every minor question or suggestion for improvement.
In interpreting your review, and the numerical scores, please refer to the review instructions.
You are requested not to use the response form to debate the reviewers’ subjective opinions regarding the merit of your work. Nor should you try to “correct” your paper in any way - either in terms of its basic technical arguments, or in the presentation of those arguments. Above all, the response facility should not be used to report on new results, obtained after the submission deadline.
This process is intended to help produce more accurate reviews for your paper. It is not intended to strengthen the arguments in your paper.

If the paper is accepted, you will still have an opportunity to make revisions, i.e., before submitting your camera-ready copy.

Responses must be no more than 900 words in total, counting the text boxes for responding to each reviewer, and the general response box. Comments to the chair do not count towards this word count.

Each submission should have at least three reviews. If your paper has fewer than three reviews, please check START at a later point as our senior program committee is working hard to chase the missing reviews.

EMNLP 2021 Program Co-chairs

Why EMNLP-2021 is not extending the deadline

Mon, 17 May 2021 00:00:00 GMT

We have received requests for extending our submission deadline due to the challenges that some of our colleagues and friends are undergoing. In consultation with the SIGDAT board, we have taken the hard decision of not extending the submission deadline. In this post, we would like to provide details about the reasons that brought us to this decision.

Although we have witnessed conferences extending submission deadlines during the past year, especially in the earlier days of the global pandemic, extending the deadline by a substantial amount of time such that it would be helpful to authors in adverse situations needs to be discussed and evaluated carefully. Conference schedules are well-planned to meet multiple external and internal constraints. The initial schedule was decided based on a number of constraints that are there mainly to help authors. For example, we had pushed our paper submission deadline well after the ACL notification date to give authors a chance to improve their papers before resubmission to EMNLP. In addition, we avoided clashes with other major related conferences, for example giving enough time between EMNLP and NeurIPS deadlines to help authors who submit to both conferences.

We nevertheless had numerous discussions as an organizing committee and in consultation with SIGDAT (and ARR where relevant) to consider possible scenarios for extension and expected outcomes:

One-month extension: This proposal was clearly not feasible because the schedule this year was already very tight. As the time reserved for the review process and proceedings production had been shortened already, giving a long extension would lower the quality of paper review and selection.
One-week extension: We considered this to be potentially feasible even though at the time it would have clashed with the NeurIPS deadline, which we had carefully tried to avoid. It would still require to shift the entire schedule and put additional pressure and burden on the committee, of which many members are under the same difficult circumstances as authors.
48-hour extension: This option has also been discussed. However, the consensus was that it would be merely symbolic and not practically meaningful to help authors in need. After the abstract submission deadline, we have reevaluated it and consulted SIGDAT again. Because additional complexities for ensuring fairness to all authors outweighed the potential benefits, in the end we decided not to grant a 48-hour extension.
Extending ARR for EMNLP-2021 deadline to June 15th: One proposal we received was to consider papers submitted to ARR by June 15th, by authors who self-declare that they have been impacted by some crisis. However, any extension would need to be granted to all authors for fairness. Extending the ARR deadline to June 15th would have encouraged many authors to withdraw their abstracts from EMNLP and submit to ARR later. This would have overloaded ARR, and the reviews would not have been ready on time for our final decisions for EMNLP.

Although it may not seem obvious externally, conference schedules also need to balance multiple factors to ensure the quality of the paper review and selection process. For instance, time needs to be reserved for reviewer-paper matching and assignment, for reviewers discussion, for authors to write their rebuttals, and for thoughtful discussion and final recommendations amongst area chairs and senior area chairs. After the final decisions of acceptance/rejection have been made, publication chairs also need time to prepare the final proceedings before the conference date. Once the schedule is decided and announced, changing it not only breaches the “social contract” between the conference and the reviewers, (senior) area-chairs and potential authors and participants, but may adversely burden all members further, compromising the quality of the process.

One criticism and rightful question we received was why we could not extend the deadline just as done last year. We have to emphasize that each year the conference is organized by a different set of committee members, under different constraints. Although we do try our best to learn from the past experience, important decisions, especially those that are not formally defined in the ACL policies, would still need to be discussed and evaluated independently each year. For instance, the contract signed with the conference venue dictates the in-person presence at certain dates. The hybrid format we are adopting this year aims for broadening the participation, but also inevitably limits the flexibility in scheduling compared to the all virtual format. We also note that the abstract deadline this year has effectively extended the full paper submission deadline by one week. We are currently assigning submissions to reviewers, running conflict-of-interest checks, and balancing the review load of each track after we collected the necessary information, while still allowing the authors to finalize their papers in parallel.

We understand that many people in our community are currently affected by adverse events, especially our colleagues in South Asia due to the dire COVID-19 crisis and those affected by the recent Israeli-Palestinian strife. However, in our view, it is not feasible nor desirable for conferences to respond to the adverse events that continuously happen in the various parts of the world by granting extensions. The very existence of academic conferences is to encourage quality research work that can be validated by peers and shared with the community in a timely fashion. While a strict submission deadline is necessary, it unfortunately adds stress to the authors. As part of the review reform process widely discussed in the ACL community, we hope that moving towards continuous submissions with the ARR system would alleviate this issue in the future.

Organizing a major conference has been a new task for each one of us. While we cannot say that all our decisions will be right, we certainly do not take the job lightly. After carefully weighing all the arguments as explained above, in consultation with the SIGDAT board, we reached the conclusion not to postpone the EMNLP-2021 submission deadline. We hope our colleagues understand our constraints and their implications on a large number of volunteers helping make the conference possible.

Program co-chairs: Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, Scott Wen-tau Yih
General chair: Marie-Francine Moens

Instructions for Reviewers

Wed, 09 Jun 2021 00:00:00 GMT

Thank you for reviewing for EMNLP 2021! In order to ensure the quality of reviews, we would like to share with you the following instructions for reviewing EMNLP 2021 papers. Please read these instructions before you start reviewing papers.

Confidentiality

Please note that the content of any submission to EMNLP 2021, and the participants in and content of discussion on submissions, are confidential.

The Review Form

We adapted the review form from EMNLP 2020, NAACL 2021, and ACL-IJCNLP 2021. The review form consists of six main sections.

In-Depth Review: This section is for you to give your overall assessment of the paper and to provide evidence to support your opinions. There are 3 subsections:
- The core review: This is the most important part. It should include your view of the main contributions that the paper intended to make and how well it succeeds at making these contributions. From your point of view, what are the significant strong and weak parts of the paper and the work it describes? This could be a 2-paragraph (or longer) essay and/or bullet points. Remember to describe how the work advances the state of knowledge in NLP and/or highlights why it fails to make a sufficient contribution.
- Reasons to accept: please briefly summarize from your core review the main reasons why this paper should be accepted for the conference, and how the NLP community would benefit from it. You may refer back to your review to provide more context and details.
- Reasons to reject: please briefly summarize the main reasons that this paper cannot be published and presented in its current form. What are the parts that would need to be improved in order to advance the state of knowledge?
Questions and Additional Feedback for the Authors: Since we will have an author response process, for questions you would like the author(s) to respond to during the response period, please include them here. This is also the place for you to give suggestions to the authors to help them improve the paper for the final version (or a future submission).
Reproducibility, Ethics Review, Anonymity Requirement and Overall Recommendation: The questions in this section ask you to evaluate how reproducible the results in the paper are, whether there is any ethical concern, whether the anonymity is preserved and the overall recommendation. Answers to most questions in this section are only shared with the committee, except the overall recommendation.
- Reproducibility: We use a reproducibility checklist in an effort to increase reproducibility of the research work in NLP (see EMNLP 2021 call for papers). In the review form, please answer the following two questions.
  - "How do you rate the paper's reproducibility? Will members of the ACL community be able to reproduce or verify the results in this paper?" Scores of 1-5 are used to assess this aspect. The detailed explanation for each point level is provided in the review form. N/A can be used for papers that do not include empirical results.
  - "Are the authors' answers to the Reproducibility Checklist useful for evaluating the submission?". The checklist is given at the end of this document. Three choices are provided for this question (very useful, somewhat useful, not useful). Note that this question is for us to collect feedback regarding the usefulness of the reproducibility checklist, and is not about evaluating the paper itself.
- Ethical Concerns: Authors are required to honor the ethical code set out in the ACL Code of Ethics. This year, authors are allowed extra space after the 8th page (or the 4th page for short papers) for a broader impact statement or other discussion of ethics. Regardless of whether the paper includes an impact statement, you need to read the whole paper carefully and determine whether the paper has some potential ethical issues. If that is the case, you should flag the paper by choosing "yes" to the "ethical concerns" question. The flagged papers will then be reviewed by the Ethics Committee.
  - Please review the relevant Ethics review questions and the Ethics FAQ for more guidance on the problems to look out for and key concerns to consider.
  - If you flag a paper, it is very important that you provide justification as detailed as possible to help the Ethics Committee to understand your concern.
  - Not every submission includes ethics/impact statements, and most papers are unlikely to have ethical issues. Therefore, please read the statements and use your best judgment to determine whether the paper should be flagged. Please don’t automatically flag a paper simply because it includes an ethics/impact statement.
  - Regardless of whether you flag a paper, you should review the paper carefully and answer the rest of the questions on the review form. The final decision on whether or not it has ethical issues will be determined by the Ethics Committee.
- Anonymity Requirement: Please inform PCs if you know or think you know the authors of the paper and what makes you think that.
- Overall recommendation: Here you are asked to synthesize your views and come up with your recommendation for the paper. Notice that the criteria for the long papers and short papers are different.
  - We have used a 5 point scale with a half-point increment. The detailed explanation for each point level is provided in the review form. These numbers are just a concise way of expressing your overall opinion and relative importance of the factors mentioned above.
  - We allow a rating of 3 (ambivalent), but please try to take a stand on whether the paper is above or below the borderline, e.g., by selecting 2.5 or 3.5. However, if you think this is indeed a borderline paper or you are not able to decide, you can use 3.
  - Decisions will be made not just on the scores and certainly not on average scores, but will also take into account the whole review, reviewer discussion and Area Chair meta-reviews and recommendations. However it is important to align your recommendation score with the reasoning given above, so that authors will be able to understand the motivation for the recommendations and how decisions were arrived at.
- Reviewer confidence: This section should be used to inform the committee how confident you are about your recommendation, taking into account your own expertise and familiarity with this area and the paper's contents.
- Recommendations for Awards: If you believe the paper should be considered for a best paper award, indicate it here, along with the justification. Please be open-minded and feel free to nominate good quality papers even though they may not be the typical kinds. These can be a survey paper, an opinion paper, a paper about resources and datasets, a paper for low resource language, an analysis paper, etc. A committee will evaluate best paper candidates, and we would like to have a wide variety of paper types in the candidate pool, not just vanilla empirical research papers.
Changes after the Rebuttal Period:
- There will be an author response period. It is important for you to check whether author responses have cleared up your questions or misunderstandings. This may influence your overall recommendation and the core review. If that's the case, please update your recommendation and review accordingly (and state in your review any new decisions you made so that the Area Chairs are aware).
Suitability for Media Dissemination:
- We plan to invite some authors to write lay summaries of their work and share those summaries to journalists. If you believe that the paper might have particular public interest, please indicate it here, along with the justification.
Confidential Information: Your answers to questions in this section will not be shared with the authors.
- Confidential Comments to the Area Chair and Peer Reviewers: If you want to share some information with the area chair (meta-reviewer) and other reviewers, please state it here.
- Confidential Comments to Senior Area Chairs and PC Chairs: Use this box for information that you only want to share with the senior area chairs and program chairs.

Approach

Please take a balanced approach when reading these papers. One objective is to have a solid technical program; hence, it is important to be thorough. On the other hand, we also want a broad and interesting program - so please do not be picky. You were selected to serve on the committee because you are a respected contributor to your field. You probably received papers that are not up to your personal standards. Some may still have technical merit, and could be interesting to others. Please try to keep an open mind. Don't get hung up about recommending too many papers. If you think a paper will be interesting to attendees, then recommend it.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials are allowed as a stand-alone document uploaded as an additional file. Supplementary materials are, as the name suggests, supplementary, and you have no obligation to read them. You should treat them like other citations in submissions that may be helpful in understanding background or details beyond the scope of the paper itself.

However, as noted above, given the new requirement for reproducibility, authors may provide additional information about their datasets and experiments in Appendix, and attach a zip file with resources such as code and data. Please take some time to check those, if applicable. If the data/code is provided as a hyperlink, please make sure to flag cases where this breaches the anonymity rules.

Secondary Reviewers

As in most previous NLP conferences, you are allowed to solicit help from others. However, when it comes to writing the final review and giving the final scores, we expect you to take the secondary reviewer's review and rewrite it using your own words and adjust the scores when you see fit. Essentially, the final review should reflect your own opinions about the paper, and you need to be able to justify the opinions you present in the final review.

Format of Submissions

The program chairs and area chairs have already identified submissions that violated the formatting guidelines and have desk-rejected those submissions. However, if you think the paper still violates the format guidelines, please contact your area chairs or PCs immediately.

Important Dates

Your initial reviews are due Monday, July 5, 2021 (11:59pm anywhere on Earth). Additionally, your input is needed during the reviewer discussion period from July 18 to 28, after the author response. Based on this discussion, you are expected to double check and consider updating your review and recommendation where relevant. Your duties are summarised below:

June 10 – July 5: Review Period
July 18 – 28: Reviewer discussion period (and please update reviews where applicable)

Review Advice

Please read the post on writing good reviews from EMNLP-2020. ACs will be instructed to flag poor reviews, ask reviewers to revise their reviews or provide objective reasons to justify their positions.

Findings of EMNLP

We will continue providing the acceptance option of Findings of EMNLP, introduced in EMNLP-2020, for papers that narrowly miss out on publication in EMNLP, but are judged to be worthy of publication. This will affect the acceptance decisions made by ACs, SACs and the PCs, but will not require any specific inputs from reviewers.

Reproducibility Checklist

For all reported experimental results:
(ModelDescription) A clear description of the mathematical setting, algorithm, and/or model
(LinkToCode) Submission of a zip file containing source code, with specification of all dependencies, including external libraries, or a link to such resources (while still anonymized)
(Infra) Description of computing infrastructure used
(Runtime) The average runtime for each model or algorithm (e.g., training, inference, etc.), or estimated energy cost
(Parameters) Number of parameters in each model
(ValidationPerf) Corresponding validation performance for each reported test result
(Metrics) Explanation of evaluation metrics used, with links to code

For all experiments with hyperparameter search:
(NoRuns) The exact number of training and evaluation runs
(HyperBound) Bounds for each hyperparameter
(HyperBestConfig) Hyperparameter configurations for best-performing models
(HyperSearch) Number of hyperparameter search trials
(HyperMethod) The method of choosing hyperparameter values (e.g., uniform sampling, manual tuning, etc.) and the criterion used to select among them (e.g., accuracy)
(ExpectedPerf) Summary statistics of the results (e.g., mean, variance, error bars, etc.)

For all datasets used:
(DataStats) Relevant details such as languages, and number of examples and label distributions
(DataSplit) Details of train/validation/test splits
(DataProcessing) Explanation of any data that were excluded, and all pre-processing steps
(DataDownload) A zip file containing data or link to a downloadable version of the data
(Newdata) For new data collected, a complete description of the data collection process, such as instructions to annotators and methods for quality control

EMNLP survey

Thu, 06 May 2021 00:00:00 GMT

EMNLP 2021 is planned to be a hybrid event in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, with both on-site and fully virtual participation possible. As this will be the first hybrid *ACL event, the format will be experimental, and to optimize the experience for our members, we are asking all ACL members potentially interested in participating in EMNLP 2021 to complete the survey found at: https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=9028kaqAQ0OMdrEjlJf7WY4w_ivCkJNKnHxP2pxjk6pUOTBYQjRLTUlDTkRWODIyVVFLNE9XUUFCWi4u

If you plan to attend the EMNLP 2021 conference, please complete this short survey by May 11, 2021. Your answers are not binding, but your best estimates are very important to successful conference planning.

Thank you for your input to make EMNLP 2021 a success !

Submission FAQ

Mon, 19 Apr 2021 00:00:00 GMT

Q1: Does the anonymity deadline of April 17, 2021 refer to the submission deadline or publication deadline for an arXiv submission?

For arXiv submissions, April 17 11:59pm UTC-12h (anywhere on earth) is the submission deadline. For other non-anonymized versions, it is the deadline when such a version becomes public.

So long as you don't update your arXiv preprint during the anonymity period, you won't be considered as violating the anonymity policy. That is, you can still update your web demo and a GitHub repo after anonymity begins.

Q3: Can we present the submitted work in an invited talk during the anonymity period?

Yes. However, If the invited talk is before August 25 (the notification date of EMNLP 2021) and if the abstract/content of the invited talk will be available on the Web, please ensure that the wording of that (e.g., talk title and abstract) will be different from EMNLP submissions so that one cannot be very certain that the speaker is an author of the submissions.

Q4: Do I need to submit an abstract by May 10, 2021?

Yes. We require authors to submit an abstract one week before the full-paper deadline in order to prepare for the review cycle. If you don’t submit an abstract by that date, you will not be able to submit the full paper by the May 17, 2021 deadline.

Q5: Can we change the title, abstract or the authors when submitting the full paper?

You should not change the author names, author order and the subject area after the abstract submission deadline. This information will be used to assign submissions to tracks and run conflict-of-interest checks. However, you can change the paper type and make minor changes to the title and the abstract.

Q6: Can we submit a survey-like paper to EMNLP 2021?

You are welcomed to submit a survey paper to EMNLP, provided that the survey makes a meaningful contribution to the research literature (such as new conclusions to draw, gaps in the current research, potential future research directions, etc.)

Q7: Can we submit a paper based on work reported previously in a talk?

You are most welcome to submit your work to EMNLP 2021 so long as the talk or the previous venue you submitted work to does not have a formal proceedings, with an ISBN/ISSN/DOI or similar.

Q8: Can we submit EMNLP papers to a non-archival workshop? The workshop will not have formal published proceedings, but will provide links to accepted papers.

If your workshop paper is published online between April 17 and August 25, then you would violate our anonymity policy. Otherwise, it is OK.

Q9: Can we append one page of appendix at the end of our full paper?

There's a field on the submission form for your appendix, so please submit it this way. The reviewers can still see this, and it's just presented in a separate link to the paper itself. They are not required to read this, but if you refer to it from the paper then they are likely to look for this file.

Q10: We will introduce a new dataset in our EMNLP submission. We will include in the paper a URL linking to our dataset. Can we only upload a subset of our data?

You may want to upload your dataset as a .zip archive, rather than a link. This will remain private between the reviewers & the relevant chairs, but not the wider world. It is our policy that reviewers must not steal data or ideas that they learn through the review process. If you feel nervous, then just upload a small sample, which is sufficient for reviewers to understand the resource.

Q11: Will there be Findings of EMNLP this year?

Yes, we will continue accepting a portion of the submitted papers in Findings of EMNLP, introduced in EMNLP 2020.

Q12: How is ethics review handled?

Please refer to the Ethics Policy section of call for papers and Ethics FAQ.

Q13: Do all authors have to have user profiles and global profiles?

Please make sure you and your co-authors have filled out the user profile. This includes updating your Global User Information (which includes conflicts of interest and Semantic Scholar ID, Google Scholar ID, among other things), in addition to the conference profile Information.

ACL Rolling Review Pilot

Mon, 19 Apr 2021 00:00:00 GMT

ACL Rolling Review (ARR) is a new initiative of the Association for Computational Linguistics, where the reviewing and acceptance of papers to publication venues is done in a two-step process: (1) centralized rolling review and (2) submission to a publication venue. The purpose of ACL Rolling Review is to improve efficiency and turnaround of reviewing in *ACL conferences while keeping the diversity (geographic and otherwise) and editorial freedom. More information about this initiative can be found in the ACL Rolling Review Proposal.

Working closely with the ACL Rolling Review organizers, we are running a pilot on EMNLP 2021. Papers will need to satisfy the following conditions, as also stated in the call for papers, in order to be considered by EMNLP:

The paper needs to be submitted to ARR by May 15th.
We have this condition mostly for fairness and therefore will not consider papers submitted to ARR after the EMNLP full paper submission deadline, May 17th. We choose May 15th because the ARR submission due day is the 15th of each month.
The ARR reviews of the paper needs to be completed before July 29th.
The ARR papers and reviews will be evaluated by senior area chairs, along with regular EMNLP submissions between July 29th and August 6.

In addition, given that this is the first ARR pilot and is running in parallel with the traditional reviewing pipeline, if EMNLP receives a large number of submissions from ARR, we will consider capping the number of papers that will be evaluated by EMNLP (e.g., 100 submissions).

Because ARR and EMNLP use two different software systems, the papers and reviews from ARR will be imported to the SoftConf system. Both the authors and ARR editors in chief will be notified by EMNLP of the accept/reject decision on August 25.

User Profile FAQs

Mon, 19 Apr 2021 00:00:00 GMT

Following EMNLP 2020, we will use the Global Profile and the Reviewer Survey Form in the User Profile for conflict of interest (COI) detection as well as better match reviewers with papers. If you have filled your Global Profile before, please check/update it as there are a few new fields.

This FAQ shows how to update your global and user profile at softconf. Bear in mind that your data is processed by an automatic system, not a human, hence the need to follow the instructions carefully.

Getting to your Global Profile

As a reminder, you can access your Global Profile by going here first: https://www.softconf.com/emnlp2021/super/scmd.cgi?ucmd=main

If that link does not work, you can go to: https://www.softconf.com/emnlp2021/papers/
Once you log into your START account, click “Go to the Global Profile”, then choose “Update Profile”.

Affiliations Text Box

You should create a list of domains here as specified and illustrated in the Profile instructions. List one on each line without punctuation. Suppose that you are currently working at Google, and moved there from Carnegie Mellon last year. Then enter google.com on one line, and cmu.edu on the next line. Add as many lines as necessary.

Semantic Scholar ID

This is the most important field in your profile and is used to find your recent papers for automatic COI against co-authors and for reviewer-paper matching. Please find your semantic scholar webpage (search your name at http://semanticscholar.org) and place the URL (which should look like https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/<name>/<number>) in this text box. Make sure not to include any commas or semicolons.

If you have a semantic scholar page, but it’s mixed with someone else’s papers, that’s fine. Please list that URL. But it’s a good idea in general to curate your semantic scholar so it only reflects your work - do that later and update the profile URL if necessary thereafter. Having other papers there won’t impact the processes in EMNLP 2021.
If you have never published before, you will not have a semantic scholar page, and thus list n/a in the text box.
If you have published before but Semantic Scholar does not have a page for you (it happens sometimes), you have to create a page. Updates to Semantic Scholar can take several days so, in the meantime, please list n/a. Once the semantic scholar page is available, update the Global Profile with the URL.

Google Scholar ID

Find your Google scholar webpage (search your name at http://scholar.google.com/) and place the URL (which should look like https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XXXXXXXX) in this text box. If you have never published before, you will not have a Google scholar page, and thus list n/a in the text box.

COI Text Box

In this field you enter the semantic scholar URLs of researchers who you have or currently collaborate with but do not have any publications with. Note that there should be one URL per line without any punctuation.

Year of PhD Graduation

This field was changed recently and is now split into: Highest Degree Earned (or to be earned); and Year Awarded (to be awarded). For instance, if you have a PhD or are enrolled in PhD study, please enter “PhD” in the first field, and your date of (expected) completion in the latter. If you have no degree and are not studying for a degree, please enter ‘n/a’ in both fields.

Secondary Email

This is important to list in case we or future program chairs need to get in touch with you about reviews or other conference related duties. It should not be the same as your Primary Email.

Reviewer Survey Form

You can access your Reviewer Survey Form by going to your Account profile first: https://www.softconf.com/emnlp2021/papers/user/scmd.cgi?scmd=updateProfile

If that link does not work, you can go to: https://www.softconf.com/emnlp2021/papers/
Once you log into your START account, click “Update Profile”.

Please select the areas (tracks) that you would like to serve as a reviewer below. You will be assigned to one of your preferred tracks and are expected to review up to 6 papers (including both long and short papers). If you need reduced load, please choose from the drop-down list.

Filling the reviewer survey form does not necessarily mean you will become a reviewer of EMNLP 2021. Program Chairs and Senior Area Chairs will make the decision.

Most of the text above comes from an EMNLP 2020 blog post on reviewer profiles and an ACL 2021 Global Profile FAQ on the same topic.

Announcing EMNLP

Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:00:00 GMT

EMNLP 2021 will take place from the 7th to the 11th of November 2021, hopefully in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, but possibly online depending on the development of the covid situation.
The organizing committee can be found here.
The paper submission deadline is expected to be late May or early June, watch this space for further updates.
Find the video advertising EMNLP 2021 here.

EMNLP 2021 Blog

Program interactive graph

Best Paper Awards

Best Long Paper

Best Short Paper

Outstanding Papers

Best Demonstration Paper

Call: EMNLP 2021 Live Tweeting

Author Option to Opt-Out

Conference and Presentation Formats

Hybrid conference format

Oral vs poster presentations (main conference papers)

Oral presentations (main conference papers)

Poster presentations (main conference papers)

Findings papers

ARR papers

Computational Linguistics (CL) Journal and TACL papers

Conference schedule

Registration details

Format for workshops and co-located events

Invitation letter to attend the conference

FAQ for the EMNLP 2021 Decision Process

Q1.What types of decisions were made for papers?

Q2. What was the process followed by the EC?

Q3. What will happen to the conditionally accepted papers?

Q4. The AC recommends ‘Accept’. Why is my paper still rejected?

Q5. My overall recommendation scores are 4, 3.5, 3.5. Why is my paper still rejected (or accepted to Findings, but not to the main conference)?

Q6. My reviews are largely positive, but the paper is rejected due to an ethical review. Does EC have the one-vote veto right?

Q7. Where can we see revised reviews (or comments to our rebuttal)?

Q8. How come the reviews remain the same after the rebuttal?

Q9. After the rebuttal, some overall recommendation scores decreased. Why?

Q10. Some reviewers (or the AC) misunderstood our paper. Can the decision be reconsidered?

Q11. The AC raised some issues that were not found in the three reviews, which we could not address in the rebuttal period. We disagree with those points.

Q12. We received new reviews after the rebuttal process, and therefore could not respond to them.

Q13. Some reviewers raised new issues in the revised reviews which we have no chance to respond to. Had they mentioned that in their original reviews, we could have addressed their concern.

Q14. My paper is marked as accepted to the main conference (or the Findings), but it includes ethical reviews and an ethical meta-review. Does that mean my paper is conditionally accepted instead?

Q15. Now that my paper has been accepted to the Findings, can I post it to arXiv.org and my personal website now?

Q16. Can I make changes to the title in the camera-ready version?

Q17. Where can we find the templates for the camera-ready version? Should my paper have an appendix?

Q18. I don’t see the final submission page. Why?

Q19. What is the page limit for the camera-ready version of the paper?

Q20. What criteria are used to determine whether a paper should be accepted to the main conference or Findings? Why some Findings papers have overall scores higher than some Main Conference papers?

Q21. Does Findings have its own ISBN or DOI?

Q22. Will Findings papers have some form of presentation / poster session in the main conference?

Q23. Will Findings papers be included in the proceedings of the main conference?

Q24. Will my paper be presented as Oral or Poster?

Q25. The conference will be in a hybrid format. What does it mean for my paper?

Q26. My paper was submitted via ARR and accepted for EMNLP or Findings. Will it be treated differently?

Q27. I haven’t received my notification. How can I find out about the status of my paper?

The author response phase

Why EMNLP-2021 is not extending the deadline

Instructions for Reviewers

Confidentiality

The Review Form

Approach

Supplementary Materials

Secondary Reviewers

Format of Submissions

Important Dates

Review Advice

Findings of EMNLP

Reproducibility Checklist

EMNLP survey

Submission FAQ

Q1: Does the anonymity deadline of April 17, 2021 refer to the submission deadline or publication deadline for an arXiv submission?

Q2: We will post an arXiv preprint prior to the anonymity period, and we will not update / advertise it after anonymity begins. May we introduce upgrades to the associated web demo and the related GitHub repo during the anonymity period if we do not announce these upgrades in any way?

Q3: Can we present the submitted work in an invited talk during the anonymity period?

Q4: Do I need to submit an abstract by May 10, 2021?

Q5: Can we change the title, abstract or the authors when submitting the full paper?

Q6: Can we submit a survey-like paper to EMNLP 2021?

Q7: Can we submit a paper based on work reported previously in a talk?

Q8: Can we submit EMNLP papers to a non-archival workshop? The workshop will not have formal published proceedings, but will provide links to accepted papers.

Q9: Can we append one page of appendix at the end of our full paper?

Q10: We will introduce a new dataset in our EMNLP submission. We will include in the paper a URL linking to our dataset. Can we only upload a subset of our data?

Q11: Will there be Findings of EMNLP this year?

Q12: How is ethics review handled?

Q13: Do all authors have to have user profiles and global profiles?

ACL Rolling Review Pilot

User Profile FAQs

Getting to your Global Profile