Are accepted articles “easier” to be accepted in shorter lengths?
How do Findings operate, too? What kind of papers are accepted into Findings, and may only long submissions be approved as findings? Although I am aware that ACL and EMNLP are not the same, I am asking because I have heard of multiple instances when a manuscript that had an average of four ACL evaluations was rejected while another received three. The paper that was submitted to the main conference but received lesser marks was approved as a Findings paper.
NOTE: Since I am not one of the authors, I am not aware of the precise evaluation scores for the papers. Nonetheless, compared to the work that was accepted into Findings, the rejected study scored higher on both Soundness and Excitement.
Smaller-scale contributions are more suited for short articles, but in other ways, I don’t think they’re “easier” to get accepted than long ones. To be more precise, you probably won’t get in if you think your long paper isn’t good enough and you try to make it shorter.
Findings are just papers that, despite being pretty good, are not “good enough” (based on that specific set of reviews) to be admitted into the main conference. Throughout the CFP and the original Findings proposal, there are numerous reasons that, in my opinion, are rather correct.
To put it simply, EMNLP and ACL are equivalent. During the review, you saw the conventional noise and inter-AC calibration procedure.
Short papers at EMNLP focus on novelty and clarity in a concise format, while longer papers undergo more rigorous evaluation across multiple criteria. Findings papers offer a platform for novel contributions that may not meet long paper standards but still add value to the field. Evaluation scores can vary, leading to instances where papers with lower scores in the main track are accepted as Findings papers due to their potential impact or unique contributions.