eacl-review-process

EACL Review Process

Use this to model how an EACL decision actually gets made, so advice matches the machinery.

EACL outsources reviewing to ACL Rolling Review and keeps only the final decision: a paper

is reviewed in an ARR cycle, receives an action-editor meta-review, and is then committed

to EACL, where senior area chairs and program chairs sort commitments into main, **Findings

of ACL: EACL, or reject**. Reopen the current ARR and EACL pages before relying on specifics.

The pipeline, stage by stage

| Stage | Who acts | Output |

|---|---|---|

| ARR review | Reviewers (usually 3) | Scores + written reviews |

| Rebuttal | Authors | Responses (see eacl-author-response) |

| Meta-review | Action editor | Synthesized assessment |

| Commitment | Authors | Package committed to EACL |

| Venue decision | EACL SACs / PCs | Main / Findings / reject |

The meta-review is the pivot: EACL's committee reads it, not the raw reviews in isolation, so

the rebuttal should aim to shape it.

Findings is a real outcome

• Findings of ACL: EACL is archival, Anthology-published, and decided at commitment;

notification is simultaneous with the main track. A Findings offer is an acceptance, not a

rejection — weigh it as such (see eacl-topic-selection for the accept-Findings calculus).

The single-cycle consequence for routing

• Because an edition like EACL 2027 draws from one ARR cycle with no fallback, a package that

misses commitment or is rejected cannot simply wait for "the next EACL cycle" — the next

opportunity is a different conference. Plan re-routing to a sibling *ACL venue (ACL, EMNLP,

NAACL, AACL) as a first-class option, carrying the ARR reviews forward.

Confidentiality and conduct

• ARR review is confidential; do not solicit, share, or discuss reviews outside the process.
• Reviewers and authors are bound by the ACL code of conduct; harassment or coercion (including

citation coercion) is reportable.

Ethics escalation

If a submission raises an ethics concern:
  reviewer/AE flags it -> ethics review track -> may condition or block acceptance
Authors: address ethics/data-governance issues in the paper and checklist up front;
         an unresolved flag can override otherwise-positive reviews.

Reading an outcome

• A reject with substantive reviews is a resource: the ARR reviews travel with a resubmission

to another venue, so a clean rebuttal and revision plan are not wasted.

• A borderline meta-review often turns on the honesty of Limitations and the strength of the

rebuttal — both are within author control.

Output format

[Pipeline position] <review / rebuttal / meta-review / commitment / decision>
[Meta-review read] <what the action editor likely concludes>
[Findings scenario] <accept-Findings vs push-for-main vs re-route>
[Ethics/conduct flags] <any, with handling>
[Next step] <commit here / re-route to sibling venue with ARR reviews>