Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Get a Demo
See your data in HubiFi < 2 days
Get a handle on the ACL Rolling Review - February 2025 schedule with this guide. Learn key dates and strategies to optimize your submission process.
Publishing in computational linguistics? The ACL Rolling Review (ARR) offers a refreshing alternative to traditional conferences. Submit your work on a rolling basis, get feedback, revise, and resubmit—all within a predictable timeframe. This guide breaks down the acl rolling review - february 2025 cycle, including key dates, deadlines, and helpful resources. We'll cover arr deadlines, arr reviewer guidelines, and how to effectively plan your research for the arr 2025 february cycle. Let's get your research published.
The ACL Rolling Review (ARR) is a peer-review system for top-tier computational linguistics conferences organized by the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). It streamlines the review process and aims to improve the quality of submissions. Unlike traditional conference reviews, the ARR operates on a rolling basis with two-month cycles. This structure lets authors submit papers, get reviews, and revise their work within a predictable timeframe. Several major ACL conferences, including ACL, EACL, NAACL, and EMNLP, use this system, creating a central hub for authors and reviewers.
One key feature of the ARR is the separation of reviews from acceptance decisions. This means your paper can be considered by multiple conferences, increasing your chances of receiving valuable feedback. The ARR’s flexible process also allows you to revise and resubmit based on the feedback you receive during the review cycles. This iterative approach can significantly strengthen your research and increase its chances of acceptance at a suitable venue.
The ACL Rolling Review has seen substantial growth and participation from the computational linguistics community since its launch. This continuous review platform provides a valuable service, attracting diverse submissions and enhancing the quality of research presented at major conferences like ACL, EACL, NAACL, and EMNLP. The ARR’s adoption by these conferences has increased its visibility and solidified its important role in academic publishing.
The ARR's commitment to continuous improvement through feedback and data collection contributes to its success. The platform allows authors to receive constructive criticism and revise their work before final submission to a conference. This iterative process benefits both authors and the field, fostering a culture of collaboration and refinement. The ARR’s focus on providing a positive peer-review experience has been key to its growing adoption and impact on computational linguistics research.
Staying on top of deadlines is crucial for success with the ACL Rolling Review (ARR). This section breaks down the key dates and deadlines you need to know for 2025.
The ARR has specific submission windows for your work. For 2025, plan your submissions around these deadlines:
These are the final deadlines, so give yourself plenty of time to prepare. The ARR website has the most current information.
For the February 2025 cycle, the deadline for submitting your papers is February 15th. This means you should aim to have your research completed and paper finalized well in advance. Building in extra time for revisions and polishing is always a good idea. Remember that the ARR website is your best resource for the most up-to-date information, so check it periodically for any changes.
Submitting to the February cycle offers a strategic advantage. It allows ample time for revisions based on the feedback received, enabling you to resubmit to later ARR cycles or directly to affiliated conferences with a stronger manuscript. Consider this cycle if you're aiming for conferences later in the year and want to benefit from the iterative feedback process.
The ARR continues throughout 2025 with several other submission windows. Here’s a quick rundown of the remaining deadlines:
Each cycle presents a unique opportunity to submit your work. The May cycle, for example, might be ideal for research that aligns with conferences typically held in the summer or early fall. Similarly, the July and October cycles cater to conferences held later in the year. Strategically choosing your submission window can significantly impact your chances of acceptance. Refer to the official ARR website for the latest details and any potential updates.
The ARR uses a 10-week review cycle, allowing more time for thorough reviews and revisions. With fewer cycles each year (approximately five), plan your submissions strategically. Understanding these extended review periods will help you manage your time.
The ACL Rolling Review (ARR) provides designated response periods, allowing authors ample time to address reviewer feedback. These periods are structured to give you sufficient time to incorporate comments and improve your submissions. The ARR website lists the precise dates for these response periods, which are key to revising your work effectively.
In 2025, the ARR implemented a new 10-week review cycle, providing extended time for thorough reviews and revisions. This change, based on community feedback, aims to enhance the quality of the review process. The transition to 10-week cycles means fewer review cycles each year—specifically four in 2025. This structure allows authors to plan submissions more effectively. The ARR Dates and Venues page lists the specific end dates for each cycle. Understanding these dates is crucial for aligning your research timeline with the ARR process.
If you're aiming for specific conferences, coordinate your ARR submissions with their deadlines. Here are the key conference deadlines for 2025:
Confirm the latest details on the conference websites, as these dates might change. Planning around these deadlines will increase your chances of presenting at your target conference.
The ACL Rolling Review (ARR) offers a continuous peer-review process, untied to conference deadlines. This system allows researchers more flexibility in submitting their work and receiving feedback. Here's how it works:
The ARR accepts long and short paper submissions on a rolling basis. Check the ARR website for the most current formatting guidelines and requirements. Generally, you'll prepare your paper in a specific format, ensuring anonymity for a fair review. Carefully review the current guidelines before submitting.
After submission, your paper undergoes peer review by experts in the field. You'll receive individual reviews and a meta-review summarizing the overall assessment, highlighting your paper's strengths and weaknesses. This detailed feedback helps you improve your work before resubmission or conference submission.
The ARR recognizes the importance of supporting its reviewers. Reviewers nominated for multiple papers have minimum review requirements to ensure a manageable workload. The system also allows reviewers to nominate colleagues to assist with reviews, fostering collaboration and drawing on expertise within the field. This collaborative approach aims to provide authors with comprehensive and insightful feedback.
While the ARR strives for high-quality reviews, some community members have voiced concerns. Discussions on platforms like Reddit highlight worries about reviewers using Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate reviews and concerns about reviewers' responsiveness to rebuttals. The ARR is aware of these concerns and is actively working to address them, emphasizing the importance of thoughtful, engaged reviews that contribute meaningfully to the authors' revision process. Open communication and ongoing dialogue within the community are key to ensuring the continued improvement and effectiveness of the ARR peer-review system.
The ARR allows resubmissions based on the feedback received. Incorporate the reviewers' comments and resubmit your revised paper in subsequent ARR cycles, or use the ARR reviews when submitting to conferences that accept them. This iterative process helps refine your research and potentially improves your chances of acceptance.
Heads up! The ACL Rolling Review schedule is changing. Understanding these updates is crucial for planning your research submissions. These changes impact how you manage your time and strategize for conference deadlines.
Starting after February 2025, the review period for papers will increase from eight weeks to ten weeks. This means reviewers have more time to dig into your research, but it also extends the overall timeline. This change aims to give reviewers ample time for thorough evaluations, ultimately benefiting the quality of published work. Plan accordingly and factor in this longer review period when setting your research milestones. You can find more details on the updated review timelines on the ACL Rolling Review website.
Because of the longer review periods, the number of review cycles per year will decrease. Typically, there are six cycles, but this will likely drop to five. This adjustment accommodates the extended review periods while maintaining a high-quality review process. Fewer submission cycles mean careful planning is even more critical. Make sure you understand the new submission cycle dates to avoid missing deadlines.
These changes aren’t arbitrary; they directly address community feedback. Reviewers expressed a need for more time to provide thorough, constructive feedback. The extended review periods aim to improve the quality of the review process, ultimately benefiting both authors and the field. This shift towards quality over quantity reflects the ARR's commitment to fostering impactful research. So, while the number of submission cycles decreases, the value of each review increases, giving authors more substantial feedback.
To effectively plan your research for conferences using the ACL Rolling Review (ARR), it's essential to understand the submission deadlines. For instance, if you're aiming for the February 2025 cycle, your paper is due by February 15th. The May cycle deadline is May 19th, followed by July 28th for July, and October 6th for October. These dates are crucial for ensuring your research is considered for conferences like NAACL, ACL, EMNLP, and AACL, all of which use the ARR system. You can find the most up-to-date deadline information on the ACL Rolling Review dates page. Marking these dates on your calendar will help you stay organized and submit your work on time.
One of the biggest advantages of the ARR system is its flexibility with multiple submissions. After receiving your meta-review, you have several options: commit your paper to a venue accepting ARR reviews, submit it to a different venue, or resubmit to the next ARR cycle. This allows you to explore various publication avenues and maximize your chances of acceptance. The ARR's independent reviews mean you can submit to multiple conferences without worrying about conflicting feedback, which is especially helpful for researchers who want to refine their work based on initial feedback. Learn more about managing your submissions on the ARR authors page. This flexibility can save you valuable time and effort throughout the submission process.
The ARR recognizes the importance of managing reviewer workload. Reviewers nominated for multiple papers have minimum review requirements, preventing overload and ensuring quality feedback. Reviewers can also nominate colleagues to help with reviews, distributing the workload and bringing in diverse perspectives. The extended review periods (from eight to ten weeks) also contribute to a more manageable workload, giving reviewers ample time for thorough evaluations. This change, combined with a reduction in the number of yearly review cycles (from six to five), aims to maintain the quality of reviews while respecting reviewers' time. For more information about these adjustments, visit the ARR dates page.
Submitting your work to the ACL Rolling Review (ARR) is a smart move, but it's wise to consider the financial side of things early on. Understanding potential costs before you submit can save you headaches down the road.
While submitting your research to the ARR is free, keep in mind that eventual publication in affiliated conferences or journals might come with article processing charges (APCs). These fees cover the costs of peer review, editing, and online publication. Before submitting, it's a good idea to research potential publication venues and their associated APCs. Acta Radiologica Open, for example, clearly outlines fees based on article type, giving authors a clear picture of potential costs. Being prepared and understanding these fees upfront will help you budget effectively.
Don't let publication fees discourage you! There are often funding opportunities available to help cover these costs. Many institutions and research grants offer financial support for publication, particularly for open-access journals. Check with your institution or funding body to see what resources they offer. The ARR encourages authors to explore these options, ensuring your valuable research can be shared widely.
Getting the most out of the ACL Rolling Review (ARR) process involves understanding its nuances and planning accordingly. This means preparing for longer review periods and learning how to use the feedback you receive effectively.
The ARR process has evolved, and one key change is the length of the review period. It's crucial to factor this into your research timeline. Reviews now take 10 weeks, up from the previous 8 weeks. Build that extra time into your schedule, and don't assume you'll have a quick turnaround. Instead, anticipate potential delays and plan your submissions strategically to avoid missing important conference deadlines. This also means starting your research earlier than you might have in the past. Padding your timeline will help you avoid unnecessary stress and ensure you have ample time to incorporate feedback.
The ARR process offers a valuable opportunity to refine your work through multiple rounds of feedback. Remember, reviews are decoupled from acceptance decisions. This means you can use the feedback received from one submission to improve your paper for another conference. If you receive feedback that requires quick revisions, aim to resubmit to the next ARR deadline, typically about a week later. For more substantial revisions, consider taking more time—perhaps two months or more—before resubmitting to a later deadline. This strategic approach allows you to maximize the benefits of the ARR process and increase your chances of publication success. Don't be discouraged by critical feedback; view it as a chance to strengthen your research.
Successfully navigating the Academic Rolling Review (ARR) process takes careful planning and execution. Even with the best intentions, researchers often stumble upon common pitfalls that can slow their progress. Let's explore some of these challenges and discuss practical strategies to sidestep them.
One of the biggest mistakes is starting the ARR process without clearly defined objectives. Like any research project, a successful ARR submission needs focus. Before you begin, clearly articulate your research goals and how they align with the ARR's scope. This clarity will guide your research and keep you on track. This article on common pitfalls in the research process is a great resource for understanding the importance of clear objectives.
Inadequate planning is another frequent issue. The ARR process has set deadlines, and failing to create a realistic timeline can lead to rushed work and incomplete submissions. Map out each stage of the process, from initial research and writing to revisions and resubmissions. Consider project management tools like Asana to stay organized and on schedule. Walden University offers helpful tips on research challenges and how to overcome them, including the importance of planning.
Ethical considerations are critical in any research, and the ARR process is no different. Overlooking these considerations can cause significant complications. Ensure your research follows ethical guidelines and review processes from the start. This article on identifying existing research challenges highlights the importance of addressing ethical considerations early on.
Data management is also crucial for a smooth ARR experience. Many researchers face data collection errors, inconsistencies, and disorganization. Create a solid data management plan that includes regular quality checks and a clear system for organizing your data. This will save you time and stress later. For more on data management in research, read this article on overcoming barriers to applied research.
Finally, don't underestimate stakeholder engagement. This includes colleagues, mentors, and even potential reviewers. Discussing your research with others offers valuable feedback and support. Early stakeholder engagement ensures your research is relevant and has the support it needs. This article on problems faced by researchers dives deeper into the importance of stakeholder engagement. By addressing these common pitfalls proactively, you'll improve your chances of a successful and rewarding ARR experience.
The ACL Rolling Review (ARR) thrives on community involvement. It's more than just a platform for submitting papers; it's a collaborative effort to advance computational linguistics. Whether you're a seasoned researcher or just starting out, there are ways to contribute and shape the future of the ARR.
The ARR constantly seeks dedicated individuals to join its team as reviewers and area chairs. Nominations and self-nominations are encouraged. Serving as a reviewer provides valuable experience, deepens your understanding of the field, and allows you to directly influence the quality of published research. The ARR emphasizes the importance of a diverse and experienced review team, so if you're passionate about computational linguistics, consider submitting your name.
Beyond reviewing, you can also contribute to the ARR's leadership. The role of Co-Editor-in-Chief is crucial for guiding the editorial direction and ensuring the review process remains rigorous and fair. Nominating a qualified colleague or even considering self-nomination (if you believe you meet the criteria) can significantly impact the quality of research published in computational linguistics. The ARR encourages community members to reflect on who might be a good fit for this position and contribute to the platform's ongoing success.
Staying organized is key to a smooth process, especially when dealing with research and deadlines. This section covers tools and resources to help you manage your ARR, from initial planning to final submission.
Good project management is essential for successful research. Keeping track of deadlines, managing feedback, and juggling multiple submissions can quickly become overwhelming. A dedicated project management tool can make all the difference. Think about your specific needs—do you need a tool for team collaboration, or are you primarily focused on individual task management? Testing out a few different options will help you find the best fit for your research style.
Beyond project management, consider tools specifically designed for research. Software like Trello can help your team manage projects visually, while other tools can streamline your literature search, helping you find relevant journals quickly. The right research management software can significantly speed up your research process, improve accuracy, and make sharing your work much easier. This frees up more time for the core work: developing your research and crafting a compelling submission.
Successfully navigating the ARR (Automated Revenue Recognition) process takes more than just a great product—it requires careful planning, efficient execution, and a proactive approach. Here’s how you can set yourself up for success:
Familiarize yourself with the ARR submission deadlines and review cycles. Knowing these key dates lets you strategically plan your research activities and create a realistic writing schedule. This ensures you meet deadlines without sacrificing the quality of your work. Think of it like planning a road trip—you need to know your destination and how long it will take to get there to map out your route effectively.
The review process is invaluable for refining your work. Address reviewer feedback promptly and aim to submit revisions by the next review deadline. This demonstrates your responsiveness and commitment to improving your submission. Remember, feedback is a gift—use it wisely to strengthen your work. For more insights on effectively using feedback, check out the HubiFi blog.
Sometimes, despite our best efforts, we need more time. If necessary, prioritize thorough revisions and submit to a subsequent ARR deadline. A polished, well-considered submission is more impactful than one rushed to meet an arbitrary deadline. Quality over speed wins every time.
Project management tools can be game-changers. They help you organize research tasks, set deadlines, manage resources, and stay on track. These tools also allow you to adapt to any unexpected changes in your research timeline. Think of them as your personal research assistant, keeping everything organized and running smoothly. HubiFi offers seamless integrations with various project management tools to streamline your workflow and enhance your ARR process. Explore our pricing plans to find the perfect fit for your needs.
Inconsistent or inaccurate data can derail your submission. Be proactive during the data collection phase to avoid these pitfalls. Regularly review your data and processes to ensure everything aligns with your research goals. A solid foundation of reliable data is crucial for a successful ARR submission. Learn more about how HubiFi can help you maintain data integrity and achieve ASC 606 & 944 compliance on our website. For personalized guidance, schedule a demo with our team.
Inconsistent or inaccurate data can derail your submission. Be proactive during the data collection process to avoid these pitfalls. Regularly review your data and processes to ensure everything aligns with your research goals. A solid foundation of reliable data is crucial for a successful ARR submission. When preparing your papers, implement a robust data management plan that includes regular quality checks and a clear system for organizing your data. This approach streamlines the research process and enhances the overall quality of your submissions. For more on data management in research, read this article on overcoming barriers to applied research.
The ARR is committed to enhancing the peer-review process through the effective use of data. By collecting feedback from authors and reviewers, the ARR identifies trends and areas for improvement in the review process. This data-driven approach allows the ARR to refine its guidelines and practices, ultimately benefiting the quality of published work. For more insights on effectively using feedback, check out the HubiFi blog.
What is the biggest change to the ARR schedule? The biggest change is the shift from eight-week review cycles to ten-week cycles. This means fewer submission cycles overall but allows reviewers more time with each submission.
If my paper isn't accepted in one cycle, can I resubmit it? Absolutely. The ARR encourages resubmissions. You can revise your paper based on the feedback you receive and resubmit it in a later cycle, or use the feedback to strengthen your submission to a conference that accepts ARR reviews.
How do I know which conferences accept ARR reviews? The ARR website maintains a list of affiliated conferences. Check their site for the most up-to-date information on which conferences use the ARR process and their specific requirements.
Are there any fees associated with submitting to the ARR? Submitting your research to the ARR itself is free. However, be aware that if your work is eventually accepted and published by a conference or journal, there might be article processing charges (APCs).
What tools can help me manage the ARR process more effectively? Project management tools and research management software can be incredibly helpful. These tools can help you track deadlines, organize feedback, manage multiple submissions, and generally stay on top of the entire process. Explore different options to find what works best for your research style.
Former Root, EVP of Finance/Data at multiple FinTech startups
Jason Kyle Berwanger: An accomplished two-time entrepreneur, polyglot in finance, data & tech with 15 years of expertise. Builder, practitioner, leader—pioneering multiple ERP implementations and data solutions. Catalyst behind a 6% gross margin improvement with a sub-90-day IPO at Root insurance, powered by his vision & platform. Having held virtually every role from accountant to finance systems to finance exec, he brings a rare and noteworthy perspective in rethinking the finance tooling landscape.
Copyright © 2025 HubiFi | All rights reserved.
