While I understand the traditional conference review paradigm involving initial scores, author rebuttals, and final scores, this model is beginning to show clear cracks under the scale and competitiveness of today’s A-level (and even mid-tier) venues. Increasingly, reviewers tend to give deliberately conservative or low pre-rebuttal scores, knowing that authors will be compelled to respond in the rebuttal phase. Even when a higher score is justified, reviewers often hold back, defaulting to borderline decisions just to see how the authors respond.

This issue is even more pronounced with ACL Rolling Review, where the scoring system is vague and lacks standard terminology such as Accept, Borderline, or Reject. This makes the process even more opaque. The ARR policy clearly states that responding to review comments is not mandatory. Yet, as an author, I am expected to thoroughly and respectfully address reviewer concerns, even when they are speculative or unreasonable. This one-sided non-obligation creates a deeply flawed power imbalance.

Here’s where it gets worse.

Many reviewers, when submitting their own papers and receiving poor reviews, tend to reflect their frustration onto the papers they are assigned to review. I have observed the following patterns:

Case 1: A reviewer receives bad reviews on their own paper and becomes unnecessarily harsh or disengaged in the reviews they provide for others.

Case 2: Prior to seeing their own reviews, reviewers play it safe by giving slightly lower pre-rebuttal scores than deserved. After receiving unfavorable reviews, they either ignore rebuttals completely or refuse to revise their scores, even when rebuttals clearly address their concerns.

This leads to a toxic feedback loop where every paper becomes a collateral victim of how a reviewer’s own submission is treated. I have seen this firsthand.

In the current ARR May cycle: I received 10 reviews across 3 papers, with only 2 reviewers responding post-rebuttal.

From 4 papers I reviewed, totaling 12 reviews, only 6 reviewers responded, and 4 of those responses were mine.

We need to acknowledge a basic truth: acknowledging a rebuttal should be a moral minimum. Yet today, there is no incentive for honest reviewing, and no consequence for disengaged or negligent behavior. Why should any of us continue to uphold moral obligations, being fair, constructive, and thorough, when our own work receives careless and dismissive treatment?

This culture cannot be allowed to continue. Unless ACL/ARR enforces stricter policies, such as making post-rebuttal justification and score updates mandatory (as CVPR and other CVF conferences do), the system will continue to erode.

I am a young researcher trying to do my part for this community. But after repeated experiences like this, what incentive do I have to stay committed to high standards as a reviewer? Why should I put in the effort when others do not?

A system where morality is optional will ultimately breed apathy and toxicity. It is time for a structural shift.

Always, to the hope.

acl #emnlp #arr