Comments on: Call for input: Paper types and associated review forms

By: Emily M. Bender

Emily M. Bender — Tue, 08 May 2018 03:31:59 +0000

Thank you for your interest in COLING. The submission deadline was several weeks ago. You might look at the workshops to see if any are a good match for your paper.

By: Adedotun Ojo

Adedotun Ojo — Mon, 07 May 2018 23:51:09 +0000

The feature of the application are;
* Screenwriting and Formatting
* Script translation
* Speech Recognition
* Text-to-Speech Rehearsal and Reciting
And lots more.

By: Adedotun Ojo

Adedotun Ojo — Mon, 07 May 2018 23:45:02 +0000

Hello Emily and Leon,
My Paper is titled “Multi-lingual Scriptwriter”. It’s all about developing a movie scripting application which will be able to format a movie script in major languages of the world and also translate a written/formatted script to a chosen major language. This development will help writers to format a script in their desired langues with not extra cost for post-translation.
I think this paper should fall in the category of Reproduction paper type.
I want to know if such paper will be accepted in COLING 2018.
I will be waiting to read your opinions and what you think.
Thanks.
Adedotun Ojo.

By: Dragomir Radev

Dragomir Radev — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 14:55:57 +0000

There was a similar attempt at ACL circa 2010. It was decided to have multiple types of papers (including resources, surveys, negative results). If I recall correctly, after a year or two, this experiment was abandoned. I have to look for the details. Maybe some of the PC chairs from that time can say more.

By: Ron Artstein

Ron Artstein — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 02:12:11 +0000

I agree with placing the request for overall assessment and the ‘comments for authors’ box at the beginning of the review. I also think it’s fine to stop there 🙂

By: Donia Scott

Donia Scott — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:14:45 +0000

I fully agree with Bonnie on this!

By: Donia Scott

Donia Scott — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:12:56 +0000

An important characteristic of COLING compared to other CL conferences has also been to attract papers that challenge our thinking (including those which address important topics that are no longer ‘sexy’ –at one point that was MT!) and Ines which are likely to generate a lot of discussion. Indeed, the tradition to include in the programme a half-day excursion is intended to precisely provide opportunities for such discussions to take place in a fun and relaxed setting. Perhaps there’s a way to incorporate this in the review form.

Like others have said, I find — whether as author, co-reviewer, area chair or PC chair — reviews that provide little narrative comment to be particularly unhelpful. I wonder whether placing the request for overall assessment and the ‘comments for authors’ box at the beginning of the review form instead of the usual end might make a difference?

By: Emily M. Bender

Emily M. Bender — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:16:03 +0000

Thank you, Barbara. One way to ensure better matching of reviewers to paper types is to make the paper type very visible during the bidding phase, which we will endeavor to do!

By: Emily M. Bender

Emily M. Bender — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:14:13 +0000

Yes, we realize there is a risk in having more than one review form, but we are also committed to trying it out, because the status quo seems to focus everything on the NLP engineering experiment paper type. We want some of those, of course, but not only those.

Our plans for avoiding the problems that came up with ACL 2010 include this blog (and other efforts at clearly publicizing what we have in mind) as well as keeping the range of review forms much smaller, so as not to have such an overwhelming menu.

By: Emily M. Bender

Emily M. Bender — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:12:40 +0000

Thank you for this! We will look into how to incorporate it into the review forms.