Submission Form

We have a new and more structured submission form for NAACL HLT 2018. Here we present the new items and explain who will see authors’ responses to them.Some questions and instructions result from our goal to manage the integrity and quality of the publication process.

• Instructions:
  • Policies for Submission and Citation – this section links to the ACL and NAACL HLT 2018 guidelines for others. Please read these guidelines carefully. If your submission does not follow them, it may be rejected without review.
  • Authors – please note that per the NAACL HLT 2018 guidelines for authors, all individuals and only those individuals who made substantial contributions to the work should be listed. No authors may be added, and all authors will receive email notifications for the submission. If an author has a question about our authorship policy, please contact us.
• Submission form questions:
  • Prior publications and contemporaneous submissions – Authors should provide a list of these, following the ACL author guidelines. Responses to this question will only be shown to area chairs; reviewers will not have access.
  • Checklist for submissions – Check each box to confirm that the submission and work adhere to the referenced guidelines. Responses to these questions will only be shown to area chairs.

Additional questions are intended to help meet our goal to create a great program.

• Topics – please select all relevant topics. Responses to this question will be used as one feature in our process for assigning your submission to an area and to an area chair.
• Contributions – please provide a short list of the major contributions presented in the submission. Also, check all relevant contribution types that form part of the work presented in the submission. Responses to these questions will only be shown to area chairs. The review form has analogous questions for reviewers.
• Types (for short papers only) – as outlined in our CFP, long paper submissions “must describe substantial, original, completed and unpublished work.” By contrast, most short paper submissions will present: a small, focused contribution; work in progress; a negative result; an opinion piece; or an interesting application nugget. There may be other categories of short paper submission. This question is a check for authors to ensure that they are not merely submitting a truncated version of what should have been a long paper submission.

Of special note is the new question regarding contribution types. The contribution categories we list are:

• New NLP task – for example, a computational approach to a previously unstudied linguistic phenomenon
• New NLP application – a new way to use NLP
• New method – a new computational method (for an existing or new task or application)
• New data set or resource – this may include a new corpus, new annotations on an existing corpus, a new knowledge base, a new language resource, etc. The data set or resource need not necessarily be one provided to the research community – for example, if it is proprietary or contains private data – although to the extent possible, researchers are encouraged to share data and resources in the interests of reproducible science.
• New system / software – the software or system need not necessarily be provided with the submission – for example, if it is proprietary – although to the extent possible, researchers are encouraged to share software and systems in the interests of reproducible science.
• New evaluation metric or method – if this is a contribution of the submission, it should be thoroughly motivated and described in the submission, and if possible a reference implementation should be provided.
• New theoretical, algorithmic or empirical results – A theoretical result may be fundamentally linguistic (e.g. a description of a new approach to syntax), or fundamentally computational (e.g. bounds on the performance of a method). An algorithmic result may be a formalizations of a new machine learning or other algorithm pertinent to NLP. An empirical result may include a corpus study or controlled experiment done to test a hypothesis. In the latter case, authors should describe the hypothesis being tested and adequately account for confounds. Evaluations may be empirical results if the results are quantifiable and test a hypothesis in a controlled fashion.
• Other – although these categories probably account for most types of contribution in a computational linguistics paper, if there is another category authors should describe it in detail in the list of contributions and in their paper.

 

Amanda Stent

Advertisement