ELSNET-list archive

Category:   E-CFP
Subject:   EACL 2009: Second Call for Papers
Email:   joakim.nivre_(on)_lingfil.uu.se
Date received:   24 Jun 2008
Deadline:   10 Oct 2008
Start date:   30 Mar 2009

EACL 2009: Second 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 The conference invites the submission of papers on substantial, original, and unpublished research on all aspects of computational linguistics, including, but not limited to: - phonetics, phonology, and morphology; - spoken language processing and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. Requirements 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 long papers by presentation format. 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. Additional instructions for electronic submission will be posted on the conference website at http://www.eacl2009.gr. 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 Organization 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 Netherlands) 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. Appropriateness --------------- 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. (most submissions) 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. Clarity ------- 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. Soundness/Correctness --------------------- 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 argumentation? (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 supported. 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 properties? 5 = Precise and complete comparison with related work. Good job given the space constraints. 4 = Mostly solid bibliography and comparison, but I have some suggestions. 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 comparison. Originality/Innovativeness -------------------------- 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 insight. 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 theme. 1 = Significant portions have actually been done before or done better. 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 contributions. 2 = Marginally interesting. May or may not be cited. 1 = Will have no impact on the field. Recommendation -------------- 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 recommendation.) 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 recommendation.) 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. ... _______________________________________________ Elsnet-list mailing list Elsnet-list_(at)_elsnet.org http://mailman.elsnet.org/mailman/listinfo/elsnet-list

[print/pda] [no frame] [navigation table] [navigation frame]     Page generated 11-07-2008 by Steven Krauwer Disclaimer / Contact ELSNET