ACL Rolling Review · pre-submission feedback
Pre-submission feedback for your ACL Rolling Review paper
Upload your draft PDF to reviewpaper.ai and choose ACL Rolling Review. In a few minutes, three simulated reviewers fill in the ARR review form used for ACL, EMNLP, NAACL and EACL: paper summary, strengths, weaknesses, comments and typos, Soundness and Excitement (1–5), and the Overall Assessment that maps to Conference, Findings or Resubmit. An area chair writes the meta-review, and you get a predicted score range, a ranked fix list and a check against the Responsible NLP Research Checklist. Every point links to the passage in your PDF. The first three reviews are free.
Last checked against official sources on .
ACL ARR hasn't published a 2027 reviewer form yet, so this is the 2026 form. We review ACL ARR 2027 papers against it until the new one is out, and update this page when it is.
What the ACL ARR review contains
Each of the three reviewers fills in the official ACL ARR 2026 review form, in the order ACL ARR reviewers see it, and writes in the venue's style.
| Field | Type |
|---|---|
| Paper Summary | Free text |
| Summary Of Strengths | List of points |
| Summary Of Weaknesses | List of points |
| Comments Suggestions And Typos | List of points |
| Confidence | Score, 1–5 |
| Soundness | Score, 1–5 |
| Excitement | Score, 1–5 |
| Overall Assessment | Score, 1–5 |
| Best Paper Justification | Free text |
| Limitations And Societal Impact | Free text |
| Ethical Concerns | Free text |
| Needs Ethics Review | Single choice |
| Reproducibility | Score, 1–5 |
| Datasets | Score, 1–5 |
| Software | Score, 1–5 |
Overall Assessment, 1–5
- 5Consider for Award
- 4Conference
- 3Findings
- 2Resubmit next cycle
- 1Do not resubmit
On top of the three reviews
- Area-chair meta-review with a recommendation: Conference, Findings, Resubmit next cycle, Resubmit after next cycle, Do not resubmit.
- Score outlook: an expected score range and a likely accept, borderline or likely reject call.
- Fix list: what to change before you submit, ranked by impact.
- Responsible NLP Research Checklist: 18 items checked against your paper.
- Evidence: every point links to the passage in your PDF; click it and the passage is highlighted.
The ACL ARR review form, field by field, with the official score wording
When it helps at ACL ARR
- Before a cycle deadline. ARR reviews stay with the paper: you commit them to a conference, and a resubmission to a later cycle is linked to its earlier reviews. Fixing weaknesses before the first submission pays off twice. See ARR cycles, explained.
- Main conference or Findings. The Overall Assessment decides it. The outlook shows which side of the line the draft sits on, and the fix list says what would move it.
- The Responsible NLP checklist. Reviewers see your answers. The check flags items the paper doesn't address, such as limitations, data licenses or compute.
- Author response. Import the real reviews in the Rebuttal tab and get a draft reply to every concern, quoting your paper.
See a sample report first
The sample report is a real run on a published paper, no sign-up needed: three reviewers, the meta-review, the outlook and the fix list, with every point linked to the PDF. It uses the ICLR form; a ACL ARR report has the same parts in the ACL ARR form.
How it works
- Upload the PDF: a draft, the version under review or a rejected paper. The whole file is read, appendices included.
- Pick ACL ARR and a reviewer model: Standard, Deep or Max.
- Read the reviews a few minutes later. Click any point to jump to its passage, fix what matters, re-run, or ask the paper a question in the chat.
FAQ
Does it work for EMNLP, NAACL and EACL papers?
Yes. ACL, EMNLP, NAACL and EACL review through ARR with the same form. You can also pick the conference by name when you start a review: see the EMNLP, NAACL and EACL form pages.
What scores does a paper need at ACL ARR?
ARR publishes no cutoff; venue senior ACs decide. Rule of thumb: average Overall Assessment ≥ 3.5 → main conference plausible, 3.0–3.5 → Findings, < 3.0 → likely rejected. Main conference acceptance is about 20–25%, plus ~13–15% Findings. The outlook in every report uses this bar.
How accurate is the predicted ACL ARR score?
Treat it as a stress test, not a forecast. Real reviewers disagree a lot, and simulated ones can miss what a domain expert would catch or raise issues that aren't real. The value is in the specific criticisms, each linked to a passage, that you can fix before the deadline or answer in the rebuttal.
Is the ACL ARR review form you use official?
It follows ACL ARR's published 2026 reviewer form and guidelines, field by field, with the official score labels. The ACL ARR form page lists every field and links the official source.
Am I allowed to run my own paper through an AI reviewer before submitting to ACL ARR?
Venue LLM rules are written for reviewers handling someone else's submission. ACL ARR's rule for reviewers: ARR forbids using generative AI to create the first draft of a review or meta-review. Light language editing is allowed, but manuscripts and reviews must not be uploaded to non-privacy-preserving tools. Checking your own unpublished paper is your decision as the author, and nothing is shared with the venue. If you are an assigned reviewer, don't upload a paper you are reviewing. Our LLM policies guide lists every venue's rules with official links.
Who can see my paper? Does it break double-blind review?
Only you. The PDF is stored privately, served only to your signed-in account and never used to train models, so uploading a paper under double-blind review reveals nothing to reviewers, the venue or other users. Delete the paper and its file, reviews and chat are gone. Details in the privacy policy.
How is this different from asking ChatGPT to review my paper?
A general chatbot writes one review in whatever format you prompt for. reviewpaper.ai reads the whole PDF, appendices included, has three reviewer personas fill in ACL ARR's own form and score scales, adds an area-chair meta-review, a score outlook and a ranked fix list, and links every point to the passage it is about so you can check it in seconds.
My paper is already submitted. Is it still useful?
Yes. Reviews take weeks, so seeing the likely objections now gives you time to run the missing experiment before the author response. When the real reviews arrive, import them for a draft rebuttal. If the paper is rejected, run the revision against the next venue's form.
How much does it cost?
Your first three reviews are free, with no card. After that, Pro is $10 a month for 12 credits, or buy 5 credits for $5. A Standard review (Claude Sonnet 5.5) costs 1 credit; Deep (Claude Opus 5.5) costs 2 and Max (Claude Fable 5.1) 6. See pricing.
See your paper through ACL ARR reviewers' eyes
Upload a draft, the version under review or a rejected paper. Three reviewers fill in the ACL ARR form, an area chair writes the meta-review, and every point links to the passage it is about. Your first three runs are free.
Sources
reviewpaper.ai is not affiliated with ACL ARR or its organizers. Rules change between cycles; the official pages above always win.