Tags: * march delay unacceptable * link meta/reviews to conferences * improve communication about ARR problems * thank you to ARR team
"I was initially enthusiastic about ARR, but have become extremely concerned (as both an author and
AC) about 2 things: 1. The lack of concrete recommendations about acceptance / venue choice by people
close to the papers. It's difficult to write reviews or meta-reviews without some sense of the standard
by which a paper should be judged, and I'm concerned that conference SACs are being asked to make decisions
with significantly less familiarity with submitted papers than in the past. As an author, it's quite
difficult to determine whether to commit, and it's possible that this is leading to greater overall
reviewer load, which was the opposite of ARR's intended effect! 2. The delays in (and lack of communication
about) the March 2022 ARR timeline have been extremely problematic, both for project planning and student
stress / mental health. The possibility that these delays will happen again is the strongest argument
for ending the ARR experiment immediately, and it would be extremely helpful to publish an explanation
of what happened and how we can prevent it in the future. All this said, I appreciate the huge amount
of effort this group has put into addressing the current reviewing challenges facing ACL (most of which
are unrelated to ARR!) and the open discussion about next steps."