ACL Submission
Run this audit before uploading to an ACL Rolling Review (ARR) cycle on OpenReview.
ACL papers are not submitted to the conference directly: they enter an ARR cycle,
collect reviews and a meta-review, and are later committed to ACL. Reopen the
current ARR CFP at aclrollingreview.org/cfp and the target conference's call
before trusting any number below.
Two-step reality check
- Confirm which ARR cycles feed your target ACL edition. ACL 2026 accepted work
from the October 2025 and January 2026 cycles; committing requires a complete
review package, so the last eligible cycle is earlier than the conference date
suggests.
- The ARR deadline is the hard one. Commitment is a separate, later form with its
own deadline (March 14, 2026 for ACL 2026) — see
acl-workflow for the calendar.
- All ARR deadlines run 11:59 pm UTC-12 (anywhere on Earth).
Format gate
- Long papers: up to 8 content pages. Short papers: up to 4. Both get unlimited
pages for references, plus unlimited space after the conclusion for the
required Limitations section and an optional ethics statement.
- A missing Limitations section or overlength content is an explicit desk-reject
condition under the ARR CFP — this is the most common self-inflicted rejection.
- Use the official ACL LaTeX/Word style files unmodified; margin, font, or
spacing tampering is treated as a length violation.
- Appendices go after references in the same PDF; reviewers are not obliged to
read them, so the 8 or 4 content pages must carry the whole argument.
Anonymity gate
- The submission itself must be fully anonymized: no names, affiliations,
acknowledgements, or self-revealing "we previously showed" citations.
- Since January 2024 there is no anonymity period: you may post a
non-anonymous preprint at any time. But you must declare preprint status at
submission, and choosing "no non-anonymous preprint" earns award eligibility
and priority for borderline decisions — then posting one anyway before
meta-review release is a desk-reject offense.
- Supplementary archives, repo links, and dataset pages must be anonymized too;
links to tracked hosting (personal Dropbox/Drive) are disallowed.
Declarations that gate the submission form
| Form item |
What ARR checks |
Failure mode |
| Responsible NLP checklist |
Completed, consistent with the PDF |
Misleading answers → desk reject |
| Resubmission link |
Prior ARR submission ID + change summary |
Unacknowledged resubmission → desk reject |
| Preprint declaration |
Matches what is actually on arXiv |
Broken "no preprint" pledge → desk reject |
| Dual submission |
Not under review anywhere archival |
Violation → reject at ARR or venue |
| AI assistance disclosure |
Checklist item E answered honestly |
Undisclosed generative-AI use → policy breach |
Resubmission discipline
ARR is built for revise-and-resubmit across cycles. If this paper was reviewed
in an earlier cycle:
- Link the previous submission ID in the form — omitting it is desk-rejectable.
- Attach a summary of changes plus a point-by-point response to every weakness
named in the old reviews.
- If the previous meta-review scored 1, a resubmission within six months
without wholesale revision can be desk rejected; cosmetic edits waste a cycle.
- Decide whether to request the same reviewers — continuity helps when the
revision genuinely answers them.
Final-72-hours sequence for an NLP paper
- Rebuild the PDF from the untouched style files and re-run the page count on
content pages only.
- Re-read Limitations: it must be substantive (scope, languages, data,
compute), not a ritual paragraph.
- Fill the Responsible NLP checklist against the actual PDF — every "yes"
needs a section number.
- Sweep the supplement archive for author names in paths, notebook metadata,
git history, and license headers.
- Verify title/abstract on OpenReview match the PDF, and the preprint
declaration matches arXiv reality.
- Submit hours early; ARR deadlines are AoE but OpenReview outages are not an
accepted excuse.
Cycle-choice quick checks
- Is the target conference actually accepting commitments from this cycle?
Each edition names its eligible cycles; a mismatch strands the reviews.
- Does the team have bandwidth during this cycle's author-response window,
roughly five weeks after the deadline?
- Would waiting one cycle allow the missing experiment that reviews will
otherwise demand? A weak first cycle costs more than it saves, because the
package follows the paper.
- Is any co-author's other submission in the same cycle a conflict for
reviewer assignment? Register conflicts and profiles before deadline week.
Frequently mishandled cases
- Short paper padded to eight pages: reviewers rate contribution against
format; a four-page idea submitted long scores as thin, not as generous.
- Appendix used as overflow body: content pages must carry the argument;
a method section that says "see Appendix B" for its core mechanism fails
the self-containedness expectation.
- arXiv v2 posted mid-cycle after declaring no preprint: this converts a
declaration into a desk-reject liability — update plans, not the preprint.
- Dataset "available on request": allowed, but checklist answers must
then explain reproduction honestly rather than implying release.
- Same work at a non-archival workshop: usually permitted, but most
*ACL workshop proceedings ARE archival — verify the workshop's archival
status in writing before assuming.
Output format
[ARR readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Cycle + venue plan] <ARR cycle -> intended commitment venue>
[Format gate] <length/Limitations/style-file findings>
[Anonymity + declarations] <checklist/preprint/resubmission/dual-submission findings>
[Desk-reject risks] <ranked list>
[Fix order] <what to change before the cycle deadline>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → ACL-Skills/skills/acl-submission/SKILL.md
1---2name: acl-submission3description: Use when auditing an ACL submission before an ACL Rolling Review cycle deadline, covering long/short paper page budgets, the mandatory Limitations section, Responsible NLP checklist, anonymized PDFs and supplements, preprint declarations, dual-submission rules, resubmission linking, and ARR desk-reject triggers on OpenReview.4---5
6
7# ACL Submission
8
9Run this audit before uploading to an ACL Rolling Review (ARR) cycle on OpenReview.
10ACL papers are not submitted to the conference directly: they enter an ARR cycle,
11collect reviews and a meta-review, and are later *committed* to ACL. Reopen the
12current ARR CFP at aclrollingreview.org/cfp and the target conference's call
13before trusting any number below.
14
15## Two-step reality check
16
17- Confirm which ARR cycles feed your target ACL edition. ACL 2026 accepted work
18 from the October 2025 and January 2026 cycles; committing requires a complete
19 review package, so the last eligible cycle is earlier than the conference date
20 suggests.
21- The ARR deadline is the hard one. Commitment is a separate, later form with its
22 own deadline (March 14, 2026 for ACL 2026) — see `acl-workflow` for the calendar.
23- All ARR deadlines run 11:59 pm UTC-12 (anywhere on Earth).
24
25## Format gate
26
27- Long papers: up to 8 content pages. Short papers: up to 4. Both get unlimited
28 pages for references, plus unlimited space after the conclusion for the
29 **required Limitations section** and an optional ethics statement.
30- A missing Limitations section or overlength content is an explicit desk-reject
31 condition under the ARR CFP — this is the most common self-inflicted rejection.
32- Use the official ACL LaTeX/Word style files unmodified; margin, font, or
33 spacing tampering is treated as a length violation.
34- Appendices go after references in the same PDF; reviewers are not obliged to
35 read them, so the 8 or 4 content pages must carry the whole argument.
36
37## Anonymity gate
38
39- The submission itself must be fully anonymized: no names, affiliations,
40 acknowledgements, or self-revealing "we previously showed" citations.
41- Since January 2024 there is **no anonymity period**: you may post a
42 non-anonymous preprint at any time. But you must declare preprint status at
43 submission, and choosing "no non-anonymous preprint" earns award eligibility
44 and priority for borderline decisions — then posting one anyway before
45 meta-review release is a desk-reject offense.
46- Supplementary archives, repo links, and dataset pages must be anonymized too;
47 links to tracked hosting (personal Dropbox/Drive) are disallowed.
48
49## Declarations that gate the submission form
50
51| Form item | What ARR checks | Failure mode |
52|---|---|---|
53| Responsible NLP checklist | Completed, consistent with the PDF | Misleading answers → desk reject |
54| Resubmission link | Prior ARR submission ID + change summary | Unacknowledged resubmission → desk reject |
55| Preprint declaration | Matches what is actually on arXiv | Broken "no preprint" pledge → desk reject |
56| Dual submission | Not under review anywhere archival | Violation → reject at ARR or venue |
57| AI assistance disclosure | Checklist item E answered honestly | Undisclosed generative-AI use → policy breach |
58
59## Resubmission discipline
60
61ARR is built for revise-and-resubmit across cycles. If this paper was reviewed
62in an earlier cycle:
63
641. Link the previous submission ID in the form — omitting it is desk-rejectable.
652. Attach a summary of changes plus a point-by-point response to every weakness
66 named in the old reviews.
673. If the previous meta-review scored 1, a resubmission within six months
68 without wholesale revision can be desk rejected; cosmetic edits waste a cycle.
694. Decide whether to request the same reviewers — continuity helps when the
70 revision genuinely answers them.
71
72## Final-72-hours sequence for an NLP paper
73
741. Rebuild the PDF from the untouched style files and re-run the page count on
75 content pages only.
762. Re-read Limitations: it must be substantive (scope, languages, data,
77 compute), not a ritual paragraph.
783. Fill the Responsible NLP checklist against the actual PDF — every "yes"
79 needs a section number.
804. Sweep the supplement archive for author names in paths, notebook metadata,
81 git history, and license headers.
825. Verify title/abstract on OpenReview match the PDF, and the preprint
83 declaration matches arXiv reality.
846. Submit hours early; ARR deadlines are AoE but OpenReview outages are not an
85 accepted excuse.
86
87## Cycle-choice quick checks
88
89- Is the target conference actually accepting commitments from this cycle?
90 Each edition names its eligible cycles; a mismatch strands the reviews.
91- Does the team have bandwidth during this cycle's author-response window,
92 roughly five weeks after the deadline?
93- Would waiting one cycle allow the missing experiment that reviews will
94 otherwise demand? A weak first cycle costs more than it saves, because the
95 package follows the paper.
96- Is any co-author's other submission in the same cycle a conflict for
97 reviewer assignment? Register conflicts and profiles before deadline week.
98
99## Frequently mishandled cases
100
101- **Short paper padded to eight pages**: reviewers rate contribution against
102 format; a four-page idea submitted long scores as thin, not as generous.
103- **Appendix used as overflow body**: content pages must carry the argument;
104 a method section that says "see Appendix B" for its core mechanism fails
105 the self-containedness expectation.
106- **arXiv v2 posted mid-cycle** after declaring no preprint: this converts a
107 declaration into a desk-reject liability — update plans, not the preprint.
108- **Dataset "available on request"**: allowed, but checklist answers must
109 then explain reproduction honestly rather than implying release.
110- **Same work at a non-archival workshop**: usually permitted, but most
111 \*ACL workshop proceedings ARE archival — verify the workshop's archival
112 status in writing before assuming.
113
114## Output format
115
116```text
117[ARR readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
118[Cycle + venue plan] <ARR cycle -> intended commitment venue>
119[Format gate] <length/Limitations/style-file findings>
120[Anonymity + declarations] <checklist/preprint/resubmission/dual-submission findings>
121[Desk-reject risks] <ranked list>
122[Fix order] <what to change before the cycle deadline>
123```
124
125---
126
127**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `ACL-Skills/skills/acl-submission/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain