[Elsnet-list] EACL 2009: Third and Final Call for Papers

Joakim Nivre joakim.nivre at lingfil.uu.se
Tue Sep 2 14:39:03 CEST 2008

-------------- next part --------------
EACL 2009: Third and Final Call for Papers
March 30 - April 3, 2009
Athens, Greece
URL: http://www.eacl2009.gr

Submission deadline: October 10, 2008

EACL 2009 is the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association 
for Computational Linguistics. The conference invites the submission of 
papers on substantial, original, and unpublished research on all aspects of 
computational linguistics, including, but not limited to:

- phonetics, phonology, and morphology;
- spoken language processing and language modeling;
- word segmentation, tagging, and chunking;
- syntax, parsing, and grammar formalisms;
- lexical semantics and word sense disambiguation;
- compositional semantics and textual entailment;
- pragmatics, discourse, and dialogue;
- lexicon, lexical databases, and ontologies;
- generation and summarization;
- information retrieval, question answering, and information extraction;
- machine translation and multilingual systems;
- dialogue systems and multimodal systems;
- language resources and tools, and resources for lesser studied languages;
- linguistic, psychological, and mathematical models of language;
- machine learning and algorithms for natural language;
- evaluation methodology.


Papers should describe original work; they should emphasize completed work 
rather than intended work, and should indicate clearly the state of 
completion of the reported results. A paper accepted for presentation at 
EACL 2009 cannot be presented or have been presented at any other meeting 
with publicly available published proceedings. Papers that are being 
submitted to other conferences or workshops must indicate this on the 
submission page.

Review and Selection

Reviewing of papers will be double-blind, and all submissions will receive 
three independent reviews. Final decisions on the program will be made by 
the Program Committee, consisting of the Program Co-Chairs and Area Chairs. 
Submissions will be assessed with respect to appropriateness, clarity, 
soundness/correctness, meaningful comparison, originality/innovativeness, 
and impact of ideas or results. For more information about the review
criteria, see the review form appended below.

Publication and Presentation

All papers that are accepted will be published in the proceedings of the
conference, and will be presented as a poster or an oral presentation. 
Authors will be asked on submission to state their preferred mode of
presentation, and the program committee will attempt to fulfill as many
of these preferences as possible, organizational factors permitting.
EACL 2009 will additionally aim to give poster presentations higher 
status than usual (by scheduling, physical arrangement, combination with 
refreshments). The proceedings will not distinguish papers by mode of

Submission Information

All submissions must be electronic in PDF and must follow the two-column 
format of EACL proceedings. Authors are strongly recommended to use the 
style files available on the conference web site. The maximum length of 
a manuscript is eight (8) pages of content and one (1) additional page 
of references. The page limits have to be strictly observed.

As reviewing will be double-blind, the paper should not include the 
authors' names and affiliations. Furthermore, self-references that reveal 
the author's identity, e.g., "We previously showed (Smith, 1991) ...", 
should be avoided. Instead, use citations such as "Smith previously 
showed (Smith, 1991) ...". (Do not use anonymous citations.) Do not 
include acknowledgments. Papers that do not conform to these requirements 
will be rejected without review.

The deadline for submission is 23:59 CET on October 10, 2008. Electronic
submission is now open at https://www.softconf.com/eacl09/main/. Additional
instructions for submission are available on the conference website at 

Important Dates

Paper submission deadline:		October 10, 2008
Notification of acceptance:		December 19, 2008
Camera-ready papers due:		February 13, 2008
EACL 2009 Conference:			March 30 - April 3, 2009

Invited Speakers

Ann Copestake, University of Cambridge, UK
Franciska de Jong, University of Twente, the Netherlands


General Chair:		Alex Lascarides (University of Edinburgh, UK)

Program Co-Chairs:	Claire Gardent (CNRS/LORIA, Nancy, France)
			Joakim Nivre (Vaxjoniversity and Uppsala 
			       University, Sweden)

Area Chairs:		Anja Belz (University of Brighton, UK)
     			Sabine Buchholz (Toshiba Research Europe, UK)
			Chris Callison-Burch (Johns Hopkins University, USA)
     			Philipp Cimiano (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
     			Anna Korhonen (University of Cambridge, UK)
			Kimmo Koskenniemi (University of Helsinki, Finland)
     			Bernardo Magnini (FBK-irst, Italy)
     			Stephan Oepen (University of Oslo, Norway)
			Richard Power (The Open University, UK)
			Giuseppe Riccardi (University of Trento, Italy)
     			Maarten de Rijke (University of Amsterdam, the 

Local Chair:		Vangelis Karkaletsis (NCSR Demokritos, Greece)

Local Co-Chairs:	Ion Androutsopoulos (Athens University of 
      			    	Economics and Business, Greece)
			Stelios Piperidis (Institute for Language and
				Speech Processing, Greece)

Appendix: Review Form

EACL 2009: 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the 
     	   Association for Computational Linguistics

Review Form

Please evaluate the submission according to the criteria below.


Does the paper fit in EACL 2009?

(EACL 2009 invites papers on all aspects of computational 
linguistics, theoretical and empirical, linguistic and 
computational, fundamental and applied; see the 
Call for Papers.)

5 = Appropriate for EACL 2009. (<i>most submissions</i>)
4 = Linguistics or computer science but not typical EACL material.
3 = Possibly relevant to the audience but not really EACL material.
2 = Only marginally relevant.
1 = Inappropriate.


For the reasonably well-prepared reader, is it clear what was
done and why? Is the paper well-written and well-structured?
Does the English or the mathematics need cleaning up? Would 
the explanation benefit from more examples or pictures?

Is there sufficient detail for an expert to validate the work,
e.g., by replicating experiments or filling in theoretical steps?

(Take into account whether any obscurity or minor English errors
could be fixed with relatively little effort, or whether the 
paper requires more work than is likely to be carried out in the
few weeks available.)

5 = Admirably clear.
4 = Understandable by most readers.
3 = Mostly understandable to me with some effort.
2 = Important questions were hard to resolve even with effort.
1 = Much of the paper is confusing.


First, is the general approach sound and well-chosen given the
purpose of the paper? Secondly, can one trust the claims of the 
paper -- are they supported by proper linguistic analysis, 
experiments, (other) empirical results, proofs, or other 

(Note that the kind of support required will be different for 
different types of papers, theoretical or empirical, linguistic
or computational, fundamental or applied. Please try to assess 
whether the justification offered is adequate given the goals 
of the paper.)

5 = The approach is very apt, and the claims are convincingly 
4 = Generally solid work, though I have a few suggestions about
    how to strengthen the approach or its justification.
3 = Fairly reasonable work. The approach is not bad, and at 
    least the main claims are probably correct, but I am not
    entirely ready to accept them (based on the material in
    the paper).
2 = Troublesome. There are some ideas worth salvaging here,
    but the work should really have been done or evaluated
    differently, or justified better.
1 = Fatally flawed.

Meaningful Comparison

Does the author make clear where the problems and methods sit
with respect to existing literature? Are the references
adequate? Are the new contributions meaningfully compared to
the state of the art in the area, e.g., in terms of 
experimental results, linguistic coverage, or theoretical 

5 = Precise and complete comparison with related work. Good
    job given the space constraints.
4 = Mostly solid bibliography and comparison, but I have some
3 = Bibliography and comparison are somewhat helpful, but it
    could be hard for a reader to determine exactly how this
    work relates to previous work.
2 = Only partial awareness and understanding of related work,
    or a flawed comparison to the state of the art.
1 = Little awareness of related work, or lacks necessary 


How original is the approach? Does the paper break new ground in
topic, methodology, or content? How exciting and innovative is 
the research it describes?

(Note that a paper can score high for originality even if the
benefit of the approach is not yet fully justified.)

5 = Surprising: Noteworthy new problem, theory, methodology, or
4 = Creative: Relatively few people in our community would have 
    put these ideas together.
3 = Somewhat conventional: A number of people could have come up
    with this if they thought about it for a while.
2 = Rather boring: Obvious, or a minor modification on a familiar
1 = Significant portions have actually been done before or done

Impact of Ideas or Results

How significant is the work described? If the ideas are novel, 
will they also be useful or inspirational? If the claims and 
results are sound, are they also important?

5 = Will affect the field by altering other people's choice of
    research topics or basic approach.
4 = Some of the ideas or results will substantially help other
    people's ongoing research.
3 = Interesting but not too influential. The work will be cited,
    but mainly for comparison or as a source of minor 
2 = Marginally interesting. May or may not be cited.
1 = Will have no impact on the field.


There are many good submissions competing for a place at EACL 
2009. How important is it to feature this one? Will people 
learn a lot by reading this paper or seeing it presented at
the conference?

In deciding your ultimate recommendation, please think over 
all your scores above. But remember that no paper is perfect,
and remember that we want a conference full of interesting,
diverse and timely work. If a paper has some weaknesses, but
you really got a lot out of it, feel free to fight for it. If
a paper is solid but you could live without it, let us know
that you're ambivalent. Remember also that the author has a 
few weeks to address reviewer comments before the 
camera-ready deadline.

Should the paper be accepted or rejected?

5 = Exciting: I'd fight to get it accepted.
4 = Worthy: I would like to see it accepted.
3 = Borderline: I'm ambivalent about this one.
2 = Mediocre: I'd rather not see it in the conference.
1 = Poor: I'd fight to have it rejected.

Reviewer confidence

5 = Positive that my evaluation is correct. I read the paper
    very carefully and am very familiar with related work.
4 = Quite sure. I tried to check the important points 
    carefully, and checked for uncited prior work. It's 
    unlikely, though conceivable, that I missed something
    that should affect my ratings.
3 = Pretty sure, but there's a chance I missed something.
    Although I have a good feel for this area in general, I
    did not carefully check the paper's details, e.g., math,
    linguistic data, experimental design, novelty.
2 = Willing to defend evaluation, but it is fairly likely 
    that I missed some details, didn't understand some 
    central points, or can't be sure about the novelty of
    the work.
1 = Not my area, or paper is very hard to understand. My
    evaluation is just an educated guess.

Mode of Presentation

We would like your opinion as to whether the paper is best 
presented as a talk or as a poster.  Your decision should 
be based on whether you believe the best way to present 
the work is via a conversation in a small group, or via a 
monologue. For example, if a paper argues in favor of a 
general research agenda, and this agenda can be understood
without understanding every single detail, then one could 
argue that the paper is best presented as a talk/monologue.  
By contrast, if to appreciate the main point of the paper 
one must understand fully all its technical details, which 
in turn you view as hard to get across in a 20 minute talk, 
then the paper may be construed to be more suitably
presented as a poster/via conversation in small groups.
Please give us your opinion about what the mode of 
presentation should be for this paper:
(Note that this is not a question about the quality of the 
work, so a low score here does not imply a low overall 
3 = This work would be best presented as a poster.
2 = This work could be presented equally well as a talk or 
    as a poster.
1 = This work would be best presented as a talk.

Impact on Related Fields
Would this paper be of interest to communities from related 
fields, and if so, which one? 

(Note that this is not a question about the quality of the 
work, so a low score here does not imply a low overall 
3 = This paper is equally relevant to a related field as it 
    is to CL
2 = This paper is somewhat relevant to a related field 
1 = This paper is only relevant to CL.
If your answer is "2" or "3" then please indicate the 
field(s) you think this paper is relevant to:

_ Linguistics (including phonetics)
_ Computer Science
_ Cognitive science (including psychology)
_ Statistics (including machine learning)
_ Other. Please specify: ................

Detailed Comments

Please supply detailed comments to back up your rankings. 
These comments will be forwarded to the authors of the
paper. The comments will help the committee decide the
outcome of the paper, and will help justify this decision
for the authors. Moreover, if the paper is accepted, the
comments should guide the authors in making revisions for 
a final manuscript. Hence, the more detailed you make your 
comments, the more useful your review will be -- both for
the committee and for the authors.

Enter comments here:


Confidential Comments for Committee

You may wish to withhold some comments from the authors, 
and include them solely for the committee's internal use.
For example, you may want to express a very strong 
(negative) opinion on the paper, which might offend the
authors in some way. Or, perhaps, you wish to write 
something which would expose your identity to the authors.
If you wish to share comments of this nature with the 
committee, this is the place to put them.


More information about the Elsnet-list mailing list