FAQ for October 2026 ARR Cycle

  1. Please explain the two step ARR-Commitment process in simple terms.

    Answer: Authors first submit their paper to an ARR Review cycle (e.g. October 2026), where they will receive reviews and meta-reviews. Based on that, authors then decide whether to (a) commit the paper to e.g. NAACL on December 23, (b) revise the paper through another ARR Review cycle (e.g. January 2027), or (c) send the paper somewhere else.

  2. Please explain the new sustainable reviewing policy that authors need to know about.

    Answer: See the ARR post.

  3. How can I become a reviewer for ARR?

    Answer: We always welcome new reviewers! Please check that you mean the qualifications. If yes, then email support@aclrollingreview.org with your OpenReview ID and information that backs up the qualifications.

FAQ for December 2026 Commitment

Given that NAACL 2027 and COLING 2027 share the same ARR submission cycle, we would like to clarify some important aspects of submission and commitment.

As in previous cycles, submissions to the Oct 12, 2026 ARR cycle remain conference-agnostic, up to the point at which metareviews are released. At the time of Commitment, authors must designate a primary conference (either NAACL or COLING). To avoid duplicate commitments, each paper may be committed to only one primary venue. Authors will also have the option to indicate whether they would like their paper to be considered for the other conference if it is not accepted by their primary choice. Please note that selecting this option does not guarantee that the paper will be considered by the second conference. Such consideration will depend on factors including submission volume, reviewing capacity, and coordination between the two venues. Authors are encouraged to carefully consider their preferred venue before making their commitment, as the designated primary conference cannot be changed after commitment.

For Authors

  1. Why are you doing this secondary option? Isn’t this similar to dual submission?

    Answer: This new policy arose because we have two conferences using the same ARR cycle and occurring at similar timeframes. As our field grows, we expect this will become a more common occurrence, so a fair and efficient process is needed. There are two reasons we are introducing this idea of primary conference and secondary option. First, we want to give authors more flexibility in choosing where their papers go. Second, we want to ensure that, at commitment time, both conferences have a sufficient pool of papers under consideration, i.e. we want to avoid an imbalance where one conference receives the majority of papers, which can happen under a mutually-exclusive commitment policy.

    This policy is not an allowance of dual submission because PCs reserve the right to not consider papers that indicate their conference as a secondary option. Note that the standard dual submission policy stands: authors are not allowed to commit to COLING/NAACL while also submitting to another conference (e.g. ICML) at the same time; doing so is grounds for desk rejection.

  2. How do the NAACL and COLING Program Chairs (PCs) handle papers that indicate a secondary option?

    Answer: After the commitment deadline, the NAACL PCs will decide whether to consider papers that choose COLING as primary conference and NAACL as a secondary option; similarly, COLING PCs will decide whether to consider papers that choose NAACL as primary conference and COLING as a secondary option. After this decision, all papers to be considered will be given to Senior Area Chairs (SACs) to make acceptance recommendations. If a paper is recommended for acceptance by SACs for both conferences, the final acceptance will come from the one indicated as the primary conference. If a paper is accepted to one conference but not the other, the final acceptance will come from the one that accepts it.

  3. In general, how should I decide what should be my primary conference?

    Answer: Authors should make their primary conference decision based on their own true preference, considering factors such as paper fit and venue location/dates. In other words, if one truly wants to go to NAACL, then indicate NAACL as the primary conference; if one truly wants to go to COLING, then indicate COLING as the primary conference. There is no guarantee that the secondary option will be considered.

    Acceptances at NAACL could be either in the Main Conference proceedings or Findings. Acceptances at COLING are in the Main Conference proceedings. Authors who prefer a Main Conference paper over a Findings paper should think carefully about choosing NAACL over COLING as the primary conference.

  4. Is there any advantage or disadvantage of indicating a secondary option?

    Answer: There is no advantage nor disadvantage. Whether a paper indicates a secondary option or not has no ramification on the acceptance likelihood at the primary conference: the PCs and SACs will consider all papers equally. Authors should indicate a secondary option only if they are sincerely and in good faith willing to attend either conference.

  5. If I indicate a secondary option, is there the chance of acceptance to both conferences?

    Answer: No. As an example, suppose an author chooses NAACL as primary conference and COLING as secondary option. The author will then receive one of the following mutually exclusive responses: a NAACL main conference acceptance, a NAACL findings acceptance, a COLING main conference acceptance, or rejection at both conferences. In other words, under no circumstances would a paper receive acceptance letters from both conferences simultaneously.

  6. Can I add a secondary option later than the commitment date?

    No.

  7. What about the “preferred venue” in the ARR October 2026 submission form? Can it differ from what I choose for commitment?

    Answer: Note that the “preferred venue” specified in your ARR October 2026 submission form is non-binding and used only to help calculate conference acceptance rates. You may choose a different venue as your “primary conference” in the Commitment phase.

For Reviewers, Area Chairs, and Senior Area Chairs

  1. As a reviewer, does the shared ARR cycle and new commitment policy impact my work in writing reviews?

    Answer: No. ARR remains conference-agnostic.

  2. As an area chair, does the shared ARR cycle and new commitment policy impact my work in writing meta-reviews?

    Answer: No. ARR remains conference-agnostic.

  3. As a senior area chair, does the shared ARR cycle and new commitment policy impact my work in monitoring reviews in the ARR October cycle and making recommendations in the Commitment phase?

    Answer: Essentially no. Each conference will recruit its own SACs. While you will all work side-by-side with other conference’s SACs in monitoring reviews in the ARR October cycle, your main work in the Commitment phase will be completely independent.

FAQ for Registration

Coming soon!