[D] ACL ARR 2026 Jan. author-editor confidential comment is positive-neutral. Whats this mean?

· Source: Machine Learning · Field: Technology & Digital — Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, Academic Publishing & Peer Review · Depth: Intermediate, quick

Summary

A manuscript submitted to ACL ARR 2026 initially received review scores of 4, 2.5, and 2, with lower scores primarily requesting additional statistical tests. Despite reviewers acknowledging the study's novelty, the authors conducted the requested tests and included the results in their rebuttal. However, these additions were not acknowledged by the reviewers. Consequently, a Review Issue Report was submitted, detailing the completed analyses and the lack of reviewer acknowledgment. Area Chairs responded to the 2.5 review with "Thanks for the clarifications, they are convincing" and to the 2 review with "Many thanks for the clarifications."

Key takeaway

For researchers navigating academic peer review, if your rebuttal addresses specific reviewer concerns but those additions are unacknowledged, you should consider submitting a Review Issue Report. This formal step ensures your completed analyses are documented and brought to the attention of Area Chairs, potentially influencing the final decision.

Key insights

Reviewer feedback, even when addressed, may not be acknowledged, necessitating formal issue reporting.

Principles

Method

Submit a Review Issue Report when reviewer feedback is addressed but not acknowledged, explaining the additions and the lack of recognition.

In practice

Topics

Best for: AI Scientist, AI Researcher, Research Scientist, AI Student

Related on AIssential

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Machine Learning.