Specialist Role

Author of the paper (15min): You are among the original authors of the paper. You will give a 15min short, high-quality presentation at a conference presenting the main contributions of the paper. While some assigned papers might be more technical than others, you should focus on high level aspects not details.

Scientific Reviewer (10min): The paper has not been published yet and is currently under review at a top conference where you have been assigned as a peer reviewer. Complete a full review of this paper answering all prompts of the official review form of the top venue in NLP (e.g., ACL/NAACL/EMNLP). For example, see the ACL review form. This includes paper summary, strengths and weaknesses, and an overall decision of whether to accept or reject the paper. Please maintain a polite and considerate voice when sharing limitations about the work (as if the readers of the reviews might be yourself!) and even better if you can suggest constructive and concrete action items to improve the paper.

Archeologist (10min): This paper was found buried under ground in the desert. You are an archeologist who must determine where this paper sits in the context of previous and subsequent work. Find and report on one older paper cited within the current paper that substantially influenced the current paper and one newer paper that cites this current paper. You can also assess the impact in terms of citations (e.g., Google Scholar).

Wild card role (10 min): Besides the three main roles above, we will have one "wild card role". Depending on the type of paper you can choose a role that you'd like to discuss such as:

• Replicability enthusiast: You want to implement the approach described in the paper as faithfully as possible. Are the methods and experimental conditions described in sufficient detail to be replicated? Were usable resources (code, data, etc.) released? If so, you should spend some time reviewing them to see how well documented they are and how easy they will be to use. At the same time, think about questions like: Are the models open or closed? Is the training data available? Is the step-by-step procedure documented?
• Social impact inspector: Identify how this paper self-assesses its (likely positive) impact on the world. Have any additional positive social impacts left out? What are possible negative social impacts that were overlooked or omitted?
• Researcher: You are a researcher who is working on a new project in this area. Propose an imaginary follow-up project not just based on the current but only possible due to the existence and success of the current paper.
• Science Communicator/Illustrator: You are a tech journalist that would like to disseminate the scientific content of the article to a wider audience. You can write a short description of the main technical advances and/or propose a visual illustration of the technical approach.