Process for ACL Publication Ethics Review

---

Approved by the ACL Exec, 2024-11-19; Authored by Cahill, A., Derczynski, L., & Jaidka, K.

---

The ACL Publication Ethics Committee (PEC) ensures a fair publication process and addresses violations of the ACL Publication Ethics Policy. This document outlines the implementation of the policy, including the committee's structure, processes, and sanctions.

Members

Co-chairs

• Aoife Cahill (2024 - )
• Leon Derczynski (2024 - )
• Kokil Jaidka (2024 - )

General members

Svetlana Churina (2024 - )

Background

In 2024, ACL formed the PEC to establish clear guidelines and processes to address ethical violations in reviewing and publishing research. The committee's responsibilities include creating a formal process for handling violations, providing a framework for addressing unforeseen issues, and promoting engagement and transparency with the community.

Definitions

Refer to the ACL Policy on Publication Ethics for definitions of: Reviewer, Editor, Convener, Author, Works, Conflict of Interest, ACL Venues, and Generative Tools.

Publication Ethics Committee (PEC): The ACL body responsible for addressing publication ethics complaints.

Professional Conduct Committee (PCC): Handles anti-harassment policy complaints.

Ethics Committee (AEC): Manages general ethical policies for ACL membership.

Ongoing/Outstanding Activities

• Recruit a group of ACL members to serve on the PEC Committee
• Work with ACL conference and workshop organizers to link to the policy on the main submission pages so that by submitting to an ACL venue, authors accept and agree to follow the ACL publication ethics policy.
• Develop guidelines for responses to publication ethics violations.
• Liaise with conveners of ACL events on ad hoc publication ethics issues that may arise in the lead-up to the event.
• Institute a tracking system for potential ethics violations.
• Coordinate with the AEC on the dissemination of PEC policies.

Publication Ethics Committee

The PEC will be led by three co-chairs who are appointed by and responsible to the Executive Committee and who will serve three-year renewable terms. The chair(s) would typically be selected from current or former PEC members. It is preferred to change at most one PEC co-chair per year.

The Publication Ethics Committee (PEC) will consist of at least 4, and up to 12 members from the ACL, who will each commit to serving 3-year renewable terms. The PEC co-chairs manage the membership. The PEC will designate a member to liaise with the ACL office staff, leveraging their roles for logistical support at conferences and in managing possible sanctions. The committee will operate under the authority of the ACL Executive Committee and will be accountable to it. Membership in the PEC is voluntary.

It is preferable for PEC members to be relatively senior in their fields to act without fear of retribution and to come from various geographical locations and institutions to reflect the diverse perspectives of the membership. The committee should have enough active members at any time to allow for at least three members to discuss any given case, even after accounting for those who must recuse themselves due to conflicts of interest. If caseloads become too high, the committee membership may be expanded. The ACL Executive Committee may remove members found to be breaching confidentiality or handling complaints capriciously. The responsibilities of the PEC chairs include:

• Recruiting new members.
• Organizing orientation sessions for new members.
• Ensuring that each case handled by the PEC is appropriately managed and comprehensively documented. For detailed steps in the process, see below.

Privacy

The Publication Ethics Committee (PEC) will take measures to protect the privacy of both Complainants and Respondents as much as is feasible and reasonable. In cases where formal sanctions are applied, the existence of these sanctions (though not the details of the complaint) may be disclosed to other event organizers as outlined below:

• Information will not be shared beyond the necessary members of the PEC, the Respondent, any ACL Executive members approached by the Complainant, or essential ACL staff, except in cases where formal action is necessary as specified or if the case is to be referred to another committee.
• The Respondent will be formally notified of the complaint by the PEC after an initial review ensures that the complaint is not obviously specious.
• At the time of notification, the Respondent will also be informed that the case handling details are confidential and accessible only to the PEC, with certain exceptions as noted.
• While the Committee cannot mandate that the Complainant or Respondent maintain confidentiality regarding the complaint, any sharing should be done with adherence to the ACL publication ethics policies.

Examples of Misconduct

Instances of author misconduct covered in this implementation include, but are not limited to:

• Manuscript preparation practices:
  • intentionally including misleading information,
  • edits to the author order without the agreement of all co-authors,
  • submissions without the agreement of all co-authors,
  • failure to disclose affiliations
  • failure to report the use of generative AI, e.g., “ChatGPT was used to paraphrase the language in Section 3.”
• During and after the review process:
  • Making significant changes to the paper's content during review or after acceptance that deviate from the original scope of the paper or constitute unacceptable content as described in the ACL Publication Ethics policy.
  • Manipulating the peer-review process, for instance, by lobbying for reviewers who are close colleagues, relatives, or have other forms of potential conflict of interest.
  • Engaging in any behavior that may hinder the integrity of the review process.
  • Failing to adhere to content revisions or requirements set by reviewers and editors that are necessary for the acceptance of the paper.

Instances of reviewer misconduct covered in this implementation include, but are not limited to:

• Discussions outside the proper ACL-assigned channels.
• Suggesting unnecessary citations to the reviewer’s work to increase the number of citations of their own or others’ work to improve citation metrics.
• Doxxing
• Failure to recuse in cases where a potential conflict of interest might exist.
• Use of generative assistance in peer review, beyond what is permitted by the policy

Handling Complaints

Specific protocols govern handling complaints in the Publication Ethics Committee (PEC) to ensure fairness and due process. The PEC should act promptly and fairly to resolve the issue. The PEC will typically handle communications with all parties online. Any PEC member with a conflict of interest, such as being a current or prior collaborator, colleague, friend, or co-author of the Complainant or Respondent, must recuse themselves. This includes possible or perceived conflicts.

A Complainant may approach any available PEC member. Event organizers, ACL office staff, and ideally, ACL Executive and Chapter Board members should know the PEC members to facilitate referrals. A file management system is provided in Appendix A of this document. A timeline and process overview is provided in Appendix B of this document. A PEC member assists the Complainant in:

• Notification of a potential issue: A complainant fills out the incident report form, noting any evidence. This form may be updated over time as needed.
• Preliminary Assessment: ACL Publication Ethics committee chairs assess the report to determine if the allegations have merit and warrant a full investigation.
• Deciding the appropriate course of action: PEC chairs determine the next steps, which may involve:
  • Taking no further action. If no action is taken, the incident report will not be maintained.
  • Formal consideration by the PEC.
• For actions involving formal consideration, if a full investigation is deemed necessary, an impartial committee is formed, possibly including members of ARR and venue-appointed ethics or conduct committee members.
• Notification: The Respondent is notified of the allegations and allowed to respond. All parties involved are expected to cooperate fully with the investigation. Investigations are to be conducted confidentially to protect all parties. Responses by the Respondents are expected within two weeks of notification by the PEC. Best efforts will be made to find contact information for respondents should the contact information provided not function at the time of notification. In case of non-response, the PEC will proceed assuming a blank respondent statement.

• Gathering evidence: The committee gathers evidence, such as emails, draft manuscripts, and review comments, and Respondent identity where applicable.
• Deliberation: At least three members of the PEC, including a co-chair if available, will convene to examine the evidence and determine whether the publication ethics policy has been violated. The PEC may dismiss a complaint as unfounded or vexatious. If deemed vexatious, the PEC will reach out to the PCC to determine whether there is a case of harassment that should be investigated.
• Provisional decision and feedback: A provisional decision is made within three weeks. The Respondent is informed and may be asked to provide a rebuttal with additional information or context within two weeks.
• Consideration of the rebuttal: The committee decides after considering the rebuttal.
• Gathering feedback on the provisional recommendations and sanctions: The PEC recommends a decision and sanctions, if any. Decisions involving sanctions are circulated to the ACL Executive Committee for feedback and comment within two weeks.
• Final decision and communication: The decision by the ACL PEC is communicated to the Respondent and Complainant and documented while preserving their anonymity on the ACL wiki. A list of people currently with sanctions involving future submissions or reviewing is updated and confidentially shared with event conveners.
• Follow-up: The Respondent adheres to the sanctions instituted by the PEC. A deputized PEC member ensures that the decision is followed by following up with the authors if needed.
• Documentation: All documentation, including the incident report, evidence, the Respondent’s statement, and the outcome report, is electronically documented by the PEC, except when the complaint is dismissed as unfounded or vexatious. In cases of vexatious complaints, an incident report documenting the misuse of the policy is maintained instead. Documentation would be stored for 5 years, and deleted thereafter.

Sanctions

If, following its investigation, the Publication Ethics Committee (PEC) concludes that sanctions against a Respondent are justified, it will notify the ACL Executive of its recommendations. The Executive will vote on the PEC’s recommendation, ideally within two weeks. If approved, the Respondent will be informed accordingly. In all deliberations regarding sanctions, the PEC should consider the severity of the offense and the likelihood of repeat offenses by the Respondent.

In general, conduct that violates the ACL’s publication ethics policy may lead to sanctions from the ACL including post-publication redaction or removal of a paper, ineligibility to publish at future ACL events, and ineligibility to serve on the ACL Exec or Chapter Boards or to become an ACL Fellow or Lifetime Achievement Award winner. Sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• In some cases of publication-related misconduct, the authors may be required to revise their paper to adhere to the PEC guidelines, accompanied with a list of revisions and a version with tracked changes. Alternatively, in the case of serious infractions, the paper may be removed.
• In the cases of publication-related misconduct that require revision, the PEC will coordinate with the ACL Anthology staff to ensure that the revised material is posted on the ACL Anthology website. In these cases, and departing from ACL Anthology’s standard practice, the original version may be removed.
• A formal reprimand from the ACL Executive — a letter from the Executive to the Respondent stating that their behavior has violated publication ethics policies, with a warning that future violations will result in more severe sanctions.
• Prohibition from submitting work to ACL venues for a period of at least one year, but never exceeding five years per case.
• Prohibition from reviewing and editing for, or convening ACL events for a period of at least one year, but never exceeding five years per case.
• PEC can recommend that a review or meta-review be ignored, without immediate Exec review.
• Individuals may also be barred from serving on the ACL Executive Committee, Chapter Boards, or SIG Boards, becoming an ACL Fellow, or receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award for at least one year, but never exceeding five years per case. In such cases, the Nominating Committee must inquire with the ACL office staff whether any proposed candidates are barred from these honors. This check should be conducted only when the member is a contender for Fellow or LTA recognition. The ACL office staff will only confirm the ineligibility for the award without disclosing any details of the complaint.
• A Respondent who disregards a sanction may face additional sanctions.

Extended Process for Considering Cases of Uncovered Issues

For cases of publication ethics violations deemed to not be covered in the current policy, pending a policy update or clarification, provisional consequences may be applied based on the PEC’s chairs’ discretion.

• Identification and Documentation: When an incident is identified that is not clearly within the current scope of publication ethics policies, yet falls under the purview of the PEC, it will be documented by the committee chairs and a preliminary assessment will be expediently made to determine its potential impact on the integrity of the publication or conference. Committee members with a conflict of interest will recuse themselves.
• Consultation and Policy Review: Committee members will consult with well-established publication guidelines, prior policies, and cases discussed in the ACL guidelines, as well as senior members of the ACL executive committee lacking a conflict of interest. Committee members will consider if there is a broader ethical principle that the incident may violate.
• Interim Measures: If the policy violation poses an ongoing risk, interim measures may be taken to mitigate this. The provisional and final consequences applied may comprise some or all of the sanctions identified above, as deemed appropriate by the ACL

publication ethics members.

• Policy Development: If deemed necessary, committee members will develop and propose new policies or amendments to existing ones to address the gap. These will be vetted by the ACL executive committee.
• Adjudication: Once policies are clarified or established, the incident is adjudicated according to the new understanding or the newly established policy.
• Record Keeping: When a policy is amended, the ACL community should be informed of the identified policy gap, the amendments, and the steps taken to address it without revealing confidential details of the specific incident. The ACL publication ethics committee will maintain a confidential record of the misconduct and the actions taken.

Appeals

A Complainant or Respondent dissatisfied with the outcome of a case may appeal to the ACL Executive Committee, which has the discretion to order a new investigation by other committee members and/or by an external consultant.

Training and Resources

PEC co-chairs will provide virtual training for new members and ensure policies are linked to submission pages.

References

ACL Conflict-of-interest policy Anti-Harassment Policy ACL Publication Ethics Policy