/acl-workflow

name: acl-workflow
description: Use when planning an ACL project calendar across ACL Rolling Review cycles, covering cycle selection against conference commitment windows, backward planning from an ARR deadline, the review-response-meta-review timeline, commitment decisions, resubmission loops to later cycles, and camera-ready through ACL Anthology publication.

ACL Workflow

Use this as the project-management layer for an ACL paper. Unlike one-deadline conferences, ACL runs on a **cycle-and-commit** rhythm: pick an ARR cycle, ride its ~10-week review train, then decide at the commitment window whether to send the package to the conference or loop back for another cycle.

ACL is a conference with rotating per-edition program committees, not a journal: there is no standing editor and no APC. Costs are registration-based, and Anthology publication is free and open access.

The 2026 rhythm as a worked anchor

ACL 2026 (64th edition, San Diego, July 2-7, 2026) drew from the ARR October 2025 and January 2026 cycles:

| Milestone | Date (verified for ACL 2026) | |---|---| | ARR January cycle submission | January 5, 2026 | | Reviews + meta-reviews to authors | by March 9-10, 2026 | | Commitment to ACL 2026 | March 14, 2026 | | Acceptance notification | April 4, 2026 | | Camera-ready | April 19, 2026 | | Conference | July 2-7, 2026 |

Later 2026 cycles (March 16, May 25, August 3, October 12 submissions) feed EMNLP/AACL 2026 and EACL 2027 instead. Every future date is cycle-volatile — re-read aclrollingreview.org/dates before committing a team to any of them.

Choosing a cycle

• Work backward from the conference you want: each \*ACL conference announces

which cycles it accepts commitments from. The *earlier* eligible cycle buys a free resubmission shot at the *same* conference if reviews go badly.

• A cycle deadline you hit with a rushed paper is worse than the next cycle

hit with a finished one — reviews persist and follow resubmissions.

• Mind the response window inside the cycle (a few days, roughly five weeks

after submission): the team must be available then, not just at submission.

Backward plan from a cycle deadline

| Weeks out | Milestone for an experiments-heavy NLP paper | |---|---| | 8 | Claim fixed; datasets, baselines, and evaluation protocol frozen | | 6 | Main results in; error-analysis sampling started | | 4 | Human evaluation fielded; ablations running | | 3 | Full draft in ACL style; internal red-team read | | 2 | Responsible NLP checklist drafted against the real paper | | 1 | Limitations written; anonymity sweep; supplement archive built | | 0 | Submit early on deadline day (AoE) |

The resubmission loop

cycle N reviews weak?
  -> revise (new experiments, rescoped claims)
  -> cycle N+1 submission WITH: link to prior submission,
     change summary, point-by-point response to old weaknesses
  -> commit the stronger package to the next eligible conference

Budget one loop into any plan that matters: the modal strong ACL paper today has seen two cycles. Skipping the revision note is a desk reject; a floor meta-review score forbids quick resubmission without wholesale revision.

Post-decision branches

• **Main conference**: camera-ready sprint (see `acl-camera-ready`),

registration, presentation prep, artifact release.

• **Findings**: same camera-ready track; decide early on the presentation

option the edition offers and whether to present at an affiliated workshop.

• **Reject**: hold a post-mortem against the meta-review within a week while

context is fresh; choose next cycle + venue deliberately, not reflexively.

Coordination rules that save cycles

• One owner for the checklist, one for anonymity, one for the supplement —

the three most common last-day failures are all ownerless tasks.

• Freeze a "submitted" tag in the repo: the author response may only cite

what that tag contains.

• Calendar the response window and the commitment deadline the day you submit;

both are short and both are missable.

Running multiple papers through the machine

• Stagger sibling papers across cycles rather than stacking one deadline:

the response windows will otherwise collide, and response quality is the highest-leverage hour-for-hour work in the pipeline.

• Track each paper as (cycle, state, target venue, fallback venue) — the

fallback is a real decision because commitment windows do not wait.

• Reuse infrastructure deliberately: one anonymization script, one

checklist template pre-filled with lab defaults, one supplement layout.

• Reviewer-duty obligations may attach to submissions in current cycles;

budget senior-author reviewing time into the same calendar (verify the current cycle's policy — this has changed over the years).

Signals to re-plan immediately

• The dates page announces a cycle-structure change (it has happened

multiple times; 10-week cycles arrived only in May 2025).

• Your target conference posts its eligible-cycle list and your intended

cycle is not on it.

• Reviews arrive with a fixable core objection and the next cycle's

deadline is within two weeks — a rushed loop beats a stale package only if the fix is genuinely small.

• A competing preprint lands mid-cycle: plan the response-window framing

and the camera-ready citation now, not at notification.

Output format

[Stage] planning / cycle-N under review / response window / commit window / accepted / revising
[Target] <conference + eligible ARR cycles, with dates and source>
[Critical path] <three tasks gating the next deadline>
[Loop budget] <cycles remaining before target conference>
[Owner map] <checklist/anonymity/supplement/response owners>