AbjadNLP 2027 Workshop Policy

This policy establishes the governance framework for the 3rd AbjadNLP Workshop at COLING 2027, including the allocation of responsibilities, management of absences, performance review, recognition of contributions, submission procedures, and handling of conduct concerns.

Every organiser is responsible for accepting a clearly defined role, fulfilling agreed commitments, and communicating any circumstances that may affect their ability to perform assigned duties.

The General Chair oversees coordination and implementation of the workshop's activities but is not automatically responsible for completing duties assigned to other organisers. Unfulfilled responsibilities must be addressed through the reassignment and accountability procedures established in this policy.

This policy applies to organisers, advisers, programme committee members, reviewers, shared-task teams, authors, speakers, volunteers, and participants, according to their respective roles and responsibilities. It governs workshop preparation, submission and peer-review processes, publication activities, workshop sessions, and official workshop-related communications, including relevant online interactions.

The organiser agreement is an internal governance document and must be circulated to all organisers in accordance with Section 3.1. Provisions governing authors, submissions, peer review, and participant conduct must be publicly available before submissions open.

All individuals subject to this policy are expected to comply with the provisions applicable to their roles, subject to the governing rules and policy hierarchy established in Section 2.

This policy establishes the governance, responsibilities, and operating procedures of the 3rd AbjadNLP Workshop at COLING 2027. It becomes effective upon formal adoption and documentation in the workshop's decision record.

The policy applies prospectively. Decisions concerning prior activities, existing agreements, and publication rights shall respect the rules and commitments applicable at the relevant time. This policy governs AbjadNLP's internal operations. It does not constitute approval or endorsement by ACL or COLING, determine individual legal liability, or supersede the authority of the host conference.

AbjadNLP adopts the applicable ACL Code of Ethics, Anti-Harassment Policy, Publication Ethics Policy, authorship-change requirements, and conflict-of-interest standards as minimum standards for workshop governance and conduct. Applicable ARR policies additionally govern submissions processed through ARR.

All workshop activities must comply with applicable law, binding host-conference requirements, and relevant publication policies. Where these requirements conflict with this policy, the higher-authority requirement prevails.

Publication in the ACL Anthology does not, by itself, establish that a workshop is operated or governed by ACL. [1–7, 10]

The operational procedures, response deadlines, removal mechanisms, and editorship criteria established in this policy are AbjadNLP-specific requirements unless expressly identified as obligations imposed by an external governing body. Where an apparent conflict or material uncertainty concerning external authority arises, the responsible chair must seek written clarification from the host conference or relevant policy authority before implementing an irreversible decision.

Delegation of responsibilities within the organising committee does not eliminate obligations undertaken by the workshop organisers through the accepted host-conference proposal. The organising team remains accountable for fulfilling those commitments, and failure to comply may result in consequences imposed by the host conference under its applicable rules. [7]

The policy's effective date, version number, and adopting officers must be recorded in the workshop's official decision record.

The policy must be circulated to all organisers, with the circulation date recorded and a reasonable opportunity provided to review its provisions, raise concerns, or withdraw from their roles. Individual signatures or formal acceptance forms are not required.

Continued participation in the AbjadNLP organising committee following circulation of the policy and expiry of the communicated review period constitutes acceptance of its applicable governance and operating requirements for the purposes of workshop participation. Organisers who disagree with these requirements must notify the General Chair before the review period expires.

Organisers may withdraw from their roles at any time by notifying the General Chair in writing. Those intending to withdraw are strongly encouraged to do so before publication of the first Call for Papers (CFP), allowing sufficient time to appoint replacements and redistribute responsibilities.

Following publication of the first CFP, an organiser wishing to withdraw must provide at least 14 calendar days' notice where reasonably practicable, assist in identifying a suitable replacement, and complete an orderly handover of outstanding responsibilities.

Replacement appointments must be approved by the General Chair or designated organising authority. Withdrawal is not conditional upon securing a replacement, and no organiser is automatically required to assume duties left incomplete by a departing member.

Reasonable exceptions to notice and handover requirements must be made for health concerns, personal emergencies, safety issues, or other compelling circumstances.

Any new or materially expanded responsibilities require the affected organiser's explicit agreement, in accordance with Section 3.2.

Sections 4–8 establish the responsibilities, workload expectations, and delegation arrangements for the AbjadNLP organising committee.

The organising committee must maintain an up-to-date Organising Committee Register in accordance with Section 17.

Each organiser is responsible for fulfilling the duties associated with their agreed role. Additional responsibilities or substantial changes to assigned duties require the affected organiser's agreement.

The organising committee must verify the host-conference schedule, publication arrangements, submission tracks, and registration conditions against authoritative host documentation before announcing them as final.

The source register must be reviewed and updated before submissions open and again before proceedings are submitted, with material changes communicated promptly to affected parties.

The workshop's conduct policy must be publicly accessible and prominently displayed on the official workshop website before submissions open.

The policy must identify at least two designated workshop contacts for reporting conduct concerns and provide a direct link to the ACL Professional Conduct Committee's official reporting information, where applicable. [2, 8]

Each organiser is responsible for fulfilling the duties associated with their agreed role, as established in Sections 5–7 of this policy and recorded in the Organising Committee Register under Section 17.

Specific tasks, deliverables, and deadlines must be agreed upon by the responsible organisers. Each major deliverable must have a designated lead, with appropriate deputy or backup arrangements where necessary. Holding a co-chair position does not automatically make an organiser responsible for tasks assigned to another co-chair. Organisers must complete their agreed work within the established deadlines and make relevant outputs available through the workshop's shared workspace or designated communication channels.

Where a deliverable requires review or approval, the responsible organiser must obtain confirmation from the designated chair before it is considered final.

Organisers are expected to maintain timely and professional communication during periods relevant to their responsibilities.

Operational messages requiring action should normally be acknowledged within two working days. Where an immediate response is not possible, organisers should communicate when a substantive response or deliverable can be expected. During critical periods, particularly those immediately preceding submission, notification, publication, or workshop deadlines, organisers must make reasonable arrangements to remain reachable or designate an available deputy.

Organisers must provide progress updates when requested by the responsible chair, particularly concerning completed work, outstanding tasks, anticipated delays, and support required. There is no expectation of continuous availability outside agreed responsibilities or coverage arrangements. Working days are determined by the organiser's normal working schedule, excluding declared public holidays and agreed leave.

Organisers must inform their role lead and designated deputy as early as reasonably possible when a planned absence may affect agreed responsibilities or deadlines.

For planned absences exceeding two working days or overlapping a critical workshop deadline, organisers should normally provide at least 14 calendar days' notice where feasible. The notification must identify affected responsibilities, outstanding work, and any necessary temporary coverage arrangements. Personal medical or family information is not required.

Organisers are expected to assist in arranging suitable temporary coverage and provide the information needed for continuity. Any replacement or temporary reassignment must be agreed upon by the receiving organiser and approved by the responsible chair. Where adequate coverage cannot be arranged, the responsible chair must coordinate reassignment, adjustment of deliverables, or escalation of the issue. The General Chair is not automatically responsible for undertaking the absent organiser's duties.

Before a planned absence or transfer of responsibilities, the organiser must provide a reasonable handover covering:

• Current work and relevant documents.
• Outstanding actions and applicable deadlines.
• Essential contacts and authorised access arrangements.
• Known risks, unresolved issues, and decisions requiring attention.

The receiving organiser must confirm that the necessary materials and access are available. Confidential submission materials, review records, and other restricted information must only be transferred to authorised individuals in accordance with applicable confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

In an emergency or unforeseen circumstance, organisers must notify the relevant chair as soon as reasonably practicable. Temporary coverage may be activated without requiring the affected organiser to complete a formal handover.

Organisers are not required to disclose sensitive personal circumstances or arrange their own replacements during emergencies.

Permanent withdrawal, notice requirements, replacement arrangements, and handover obligations are governed by Section 3.1.

Agreed leave, reasonable adjustments, emergencies, and approved changes to responsibilities must not be treated as failures to fulfil the original commitments.

The General Chair is responsible for the overall coordination, governance, and delivery of the workshop and serves as the principal liaison with the host conference.

The General Chair oversees the allocation, monitoring, and coordination of responsibilities, while designated chairs remain accountable for fulfilling their assigned duties.

The General Chair is responsible for:

1. Workshop coordination: Maintaining oversight of the workshop schedule, organising structure, major decisions, and progress against agreed deliverables.
2. Roles and delegation: Ensuring that each essential function has a designated responsible organiser, appropriate backup arrangements, and clearly defined expectations.
3. Host-conference liaison: Coordinating communication with COLING 2027 organisers, communicating applicable host requirements, and ensuring that relevant decisions and deadlines reach the responsible chairs.
4. Scientific and event coordination: Overseeing keynote invitations, approved budget arrangements, workshop logistics, and integration of the final programme in coordination with the relevant chairs.
5. Progress and accountability: Convening meetings when necessary, monitoring significant risks or delays, and coordinating corrective action when agreed responsibilities are not fulfilled.
6. Capacity management: Resolving operational responsibility gaps, approving replacements under the applicable procedures, and coordinating adjustments to the workshop's scope or delivery plan where necessary.
7. Workshop readiness: Confirming that critical preparations are completed before major milestones and escalating unresolved risks to the host conference when appropriate.
8. Operational delegation: Appointing an Operations Deputy from among consenting organisers to assist with action tracking, meeting records, and routine coordination. The scope of this additional responsibility must be explicitly agreed upon.

The General Chair may delegate operational duties but retains responsibility for coordinating the workshop's overall delivery within the authority of the role.

The General Chair does not automatically assume duties left incomplete by other organisers and may not override properly delegated independent academic decisions, adjudicate complaints involving themselves, or make commitments concerning publication, reimbursement, or sanctions beyond the workshop's authority.

Holding the General Chair position does not, by itself, establish authorship entitlement for workshop-related publications or shared-task papers.

The Programme Chairs are responsible for the scientific integrity, fairness, and timely delivery of the workshop's review process and scientific programme. Before submissions open, the Programme Chairs must agree upon and document the allocation of responsibilities across three portfolios:

• Submission management: Submission platform configuration, eligibility screening, submission tracks, and conflict-of-interest controls.
• Review coordination: Programme Committee recruitment, reviewer assignments, review monitoring, and replacement reviews.
• Scientific decisions and programme: Acceptance decisions, author notifications, scientific programme preparation, and coordination with Publication Chairs.

Each portfolio must have a designated lead and deputy. The division of responsibilities does not remove the obligation to coordinate decisions affecting the overall scientific programme.

The Programme Chairs are responsible for:

1. Call for Papers and review criteria: Preparing the scientific content of the Call for Papers, defining submission categories and evaluation criteria, and ensuring that review procedures are communicated clearly to authors and reviewers.
2. Submission infrastructure: Configuring and testing the submission system, including tracks, author instructions, conflict-of-interest declarations, and applicable submission requirements.
3. Reviewer recruitment: Recruiting a sufficiently qualified and diverse Programme Committee with appropriate linguistic, disciplinary, and methodological expertise.
4. Review allocation: Assigning submissions to suitable reviewers, managing conflicts of interest, and maintaining a balanced and reasonable review workload.
5. Review quality: Aiming to obtain three substantive reviews for each directly submitted paper, with a normal allocation target of no more than three papers per reviewer. Where these targets cannot be met, the Programme Chairs must arrange appropriate alternatives without compromising the fairness of the evaluation process.
6. ARR submissions: Establishing and documenting how existing ARR reviews and related materials will be considered for submissions using the ARR commitment route, subject to applicable ARR and host requirements.
7. Review monitoring: Monitoring review completion, addressing inadequate or missing reviews, arranging replacements where necessary, and coordinating scientific discussions.
8. Acceptance decisions: Making evidence-based decisions using the published evaluation criteria, reviewer assessments, and relevant discussions. Decisions must be supported by documented reasoning rather than numerical scores alone.
9. Author communication: Communicating decisions, relevant reviewer feedback, and any required revisions through the designated submission system or official communication channels.
10. Publication handover: Providing the Publication Chairs with an accurate and verified accepted-paper register, including relevant metadata and publication requirements, promptly after acceptance notifications.
11. Scientific programme: Preparing the workshop's scientific sessions, presentation allocations, session-chair assignments, and appropriate backup arrangements.
12. Procedural fairness: Ensuring that submissions involving organisers, Programme Chairs, or other conflicted individuals receive independent handling in accordance with applicable conflict-of-interest procedures.
13. Author concerns: Coordinating responses to procedural questions and referring formal appeals or ethics concerns to the appropriate independent authority under the applicable policy.

Acceptance decisions must follow the established review procedure and must not be privately promised or communicated to individual authors outside authorised channels.

Where reviewer capacity or operational resources are insufficient to maintain a fair and timely review process, the Programme Chairs must seek additional support, redistribute agreed responsibilities, or request an authorised adjustment to the review schedule.

Outstanding review responsibilities must not be transferred to the General Chair without explicit agreement.

The Publication Chairs are responsible for managing the publication process for accepted AbjadNLP workshop papers, from camera-ready preparation through final proceedings submission and resolution of publication queries.

Their initial responsibilities begin before the Call for Papers, when publication requirements must be reviewed and communicated to the Programme Chairs. Their main operational responsibilities begin following acceptance notifications and continue until all publication obligations have been completed.

The Publication Chairs must agree upon and document the allocation of responsibilities across two portfolios:

• Technical publication: Proceedings preparation, technical validation, final package assembly, and submission through the authorised publication channel.
• Publication compliance and author communication: Camera-ready coordination, author correspondence, manuscript tracking, metadata verification, required documentation, and publication-related corrections.

Each portfolio must have a designated lead and appropriate backup arrangements.

The Publication Chairs are responsible for:

1. Publication requirements: Obtaining and reviewing the applicable host-conference and publisher instructions, submission procedures, formatting specifications, technical requirements, and required documentation.
2. Publication preparation: Establishing and testing the proceedings workflow and required validation tools before the final publication stage, using non-confidential test materials.
3. Author communication and camera-ready coordination: Serving as the primary point of contact for authors of accepted regular workshop papers and shared-task overview papers on all publication-related matters. This includes issuing camera-ready instructions, communicating formatting requirements and deadlines, answering author queries, tracking final manuscript submissions, requesting corrections, following up on missing materials, and ensuring completion of applicable publication requirements.
4. Author and paper metadata: Verifying paper titles, author names and ordering, affiliations, and other required metadata against approved submission records. Any authorship changes must follow the applicable publication and authorship-change procedures.
5. Technical validation: Checking final manuscripts for compliance with applicable formatting and technical requirements, including appropriate handling of Arabic-script text, Unicode characters, right-to-left passages, diacritics, fonts, hyperlinks, and accessibility requirements.
6. Proceedings preparation: Preparing the required proceedings materials, including front matter, table of contents, paper ordering, and approved contributor acknowledgements, where required by the publication workflow.
7. Quality assurance: Running required technical checks, arranging an independent second-person review of the final proceedings package, and ensuring that identified technical issues are addressed before submission.
8. Publication submission: Delivering the proceedings through the publication channel designated by the host conference or authorised publisher, obtaining confirmation of receipt, and responding to subsequent publication queries or correction requests.
9. Records and continuity: Maintaining accurate publication records, tracking outstanding author requirements and unresolved issues, and ensuring that relevant files, instructions, and authorised access arrangements are available to the designated deputy.

The Programme Chairs are responsible for initial submission management, scientific peer review, acceptance decisions, and communication of review outcomes.

Following acceptance notifications and transfer of the verified accepted-paper register, the Publication Chairs assume responsibility for all publication-related communication and camera-ready processing for accepted regular workshop papers and shared-task overview papers.

Scientific decisions, substantive changes to accepted papers, authorship disputes, and publication-ethics concerns must be referred to the appropriate Programme Chairs or authorised policy body. Publication Chairs must not independently change scientific acceptance decisions.

In accordance with Section 7, each shared-task organising team is solely responsible for managing publication-related activities concerning its system-description papers. This includes author communication, submission and camera-ready instructions, formatting requirements, manuscript tracking, metadata verification, required publication documents, corrections, and preparation of complete publication-ready materials.

Shared-task organisers must ensure that their materials comply with applicable publication requirements and are delivered through the designated publication process within the established deadlines.

The AbjadNLP Publication Chairs are not responsible for communicating with shared-task system-paper authors, monitoring their submissions, checking or correcting individual manuscripts, or validating task-specific publication materials. Missing, incomplete, or non-compliant materials remain the responsibility of the relevant shared-task organising team.

Where the host conference or publisher requires a consolidated proceedings submission, the Publication Chairs are responsible for the necessary workshop-wide integration, technical packaging, and final submission using materials supplied and verified by the shared-task teams. Any integration problems must be communicated to the relevant shared-task lead for resolution. This does not transfer responsibility for correcting shared-task materials to the Publication Chairs.

The Publication Chairs must independently monitor their publication deadlines, follow up with authors, and communicate significant risks to the General Chair and relevant host-conference contacts early enough for corrective action.

The General Chair's oversight does not replace the Publication Chairs' responsibility for publication communication, technical preparation, validation, and delivery. Unfinished publication duties must not be transferred to the General Chair or other organisers without their explicit agreement.

The Publicity Chairs are responsible for the workshop's public communications, website, announcements, and outreach activities. Their responsibilities begin during the initial workshop announcement stage and continue through the workshop and completion of relevant post-workshop communications.

The Publicity Chairs must agree upon and document the division of responsibilities between two principal portfolios:

• Website and information management: Maintaining the official website, publishing approved information, and ensuring consistency across workshop communication channels.
• Outreach and announcements: Preparing publicity materials, distributing calls and announcements, and coordinating engagement with relevant research communities.

Each portfolio must have a designated lead and appropriate backup arrangements.

The Publicity Chairs are responsible for:

1. Workshop website: Maintaining the official AbjadNLP workshop pages and ensuring that approved information remains accurate and up to date. The website is maintained through the GitHub repository https://github.com/drelhaj/elhaj, with workshop pages named abjadYYYY.html (e.g., abjad2027.html, abjad2028.html).

   All website changes must be proposed through GitHub pull requests and approved by the repository owner or an authorised maintainer before publication. Publicity Chairs are not granted direct write access to the main repository and have no authority to modify unrelated website content.

2. Call for Papers: Publishing and distributing the approved Call for Papers and subsequent announcements through relevant academic mailing lists, research networks, institutional channels, and social media.
3. Community outreach: Promoting participation across Arabic, Perso-Arabic, Ajami, and other relevant research communities, with particular attention to underrepresented languages, institutions, and research groups.
4. Information accuracy: Ensuring that public announcements, deadlines, submission links, organiser listings, and contact information remain consistent across official communication channels.
5. Approval and verification: Obtaining confirmation from the responsible chair before publishing substantive information concerning scientific decisions, invited speakers, registration, publication arrangements, or changes to workshop requirements.
6. Timely updates: Publishing approved changes promptly and ensuring that significant updates, particularly deadline changes, are reflected across relevant active communication channels.
7. Workshop promotion: Coordinating announcements concerning accepted papers, invited speakers, shared tasks, programme sessions, and participation arrangements after the relevant information has been approved for public release.
8. Conduct information: Ensuring that the applicable conduct policy and designated reporting contacts are prominently displayed on the workshop website.
9. Communication records: Maintaining access to website materials, official communication channels, and relevant publicity records to support continuity and handover.
10. Post-workshop communication: Publishing approved post-workshop announcements, proceedings links, and acknowledgements, where applicable.

Publicity Chairs must not disclose confidential submission or review information, publish unverified allegations, or communicate disciplinary findings or sanctions without authorisation from the competent decision-making authority.

Publicity Chairs are responsible for communicating approved information, not for independently determining scientific, publication, registration, or disciplinary decisions.

Each shared task associated with AbjadNLP must appoint a designated Shared-Task Lead and Deputy Lead from its own organising team.

The Shared-Task Lead is accountable for the complete scientific, technical, administrative, and operational delivery of their shared task, including staffing, datasets, evaluation, participant management, scientific review, publication preparation, website maintenance, and task-related communications.

The Deputy Lead provides agreed support and continuity, while individual responsibilities within the shared-task organising team must be clearly allocated and accepted.

Each shared-task organising team operates independently and is responsible for completing its agreed deliverables, managing internal workloads, monitoring deadlines, resolving operational difficulties, and arranging necessary replacements or coverage.

The AbjadNLP main organising committee does not supervise, manage, validate, or undertake shared-task operations. Responsibilities assigned to shared-task teams must not be transferred to the main organising committee without prior explicit agreement.

Shared-Task Leads must coordinate directly with the General Chair on matters affecting workshop-wide scheduling, approved announcements, programme integration, publication arrangements, and applicable host-conference requirements. This coordination does not transfer responsibility for shared-task delivery to the General Chair.

This operational independence does not override applicable law, binding host-conference requirements, publication rules, or the authority of competent conduct and ethics bodies.

The organising committee must maintain a shared task register to monitor significant responsibilities, deliverables, deadlines, and progress. The Operations Deputy, where appointed, coordinates maintenance of the register, while individual organisers remain responsible for updating the status of their assigned work.

Each significant task must identify a responsible organiser, an agreed deadline, and any necessary deputy or backup arrangements. Relevant dependencies, progress updates, and changes to responsibilities must be recorded.

Organisers are responsible for completing their agreed deliverables and making the resulting materials available through the designated workshop workspace. Where approval or verification is required, the responsible chair must confirm completion or identify specific outstanding issues.

A deliverable must be assessed against its agreed requirements rather than personal preferences concerning working methods.

Organisers must communicate anticipated delays or difficulties as soon as reasonably practicable, explaining their potential impact and any assistance or adjustments required.

Additional or substantially expanded responsibilities require the affected organiser's agreement. Declining duties beyond an organiser's agreed role or reasonable capacity does not constitute failure to fulfil existing commitments.

Operational concerns should normally be addressed first by the responsible organiser and their designated deputy, followed by the relevant role lead and, where necessary, the General Chair.

Where an organiser cannot fulfil an agreed responsibility, the relevant chair must coordinate an appropriate response, which may include:

1. Reassigning the task to another consenting organiser.
2. Adjusting the deadline, subject to applicable host-conference requirements.
3. Reducing or modifying the scope of the affected activity.
4. Cancelling an optional activity where sufficient capacity is unavailable.

The General Chair is responsible for coordinating the resolution of significant operational gaps but is not automatically required to undertake unfinished duties or compensate personally for insufficient staffing.

Any organiser, including the General Chair, may voluntarily accept additional responsibilities. Such arrangements must be explicitly agreed upon and recorded where they materially affect existing commitments.

Organisers are not required to personally finance workshop activities, incur unauthorised expenses, or provide additional unpaid assistance through students, colleagues, or institutional staff.

Shared-task responsibilities remain exclusively with the respective shared-task organising teams under Section 7. Shared-task organisers must manage their own workload, staffing, task records, and operational difficulties. The AbjadNLP main organising committee is not responsible for monitoring, completing, or reassigning shared-task duties, except where coordination is expressly required by binding host-conference or publication obligations.

Workshop-related documents, operational records, and digital resources must be maintained in designated shared workspaces with access limited to authorised individuals according to their responsibilities.

Where practicable, critical operational accounts must have appropriate backup or recovery arrangements to ensure continuity during absences or changes in personnel.

Organisers must use secure authentication practices, including individual credentials and multi-factor authentication where supported. Personal passwords must not be shared, and access to confidential submissions, reviews, or conduct records must be restricted to authorised individuals.

Website contributions must follow the GitHub pull-request procedures established in Section 6 and Section 7. Repository access must not grant organisers unnecessary permissions over unrelated website content.

When an organiser withdraws or changes responsibilities, they must transfer relevant workshop materials and access information to the authorised successor where reasonably practicable. Unnecessary access must be revoked promptly.

No organiser may intentionally withhold essential workshop materials, delete official records without authorisation, or prevent legitimate access to shared operational resources.

No organiser may commit workshop funds, enter into agreements, promise financial support, waive registration fees, or grant rights on behalf of AbjadNLP without the necessary authority and prior approval under the applicable financial arrangements.

Any approved financial commitment must be documented and must comply with relevant host-conference and institutional requirements.

Sponsorship or financial support must not influence scientific review decisions, paper acceptance, authorship, or other matters requiring independent academic judgement.

Potential conflicts of interest arising from sponsorship, funding, or institutional relationships must be disclosed and managed under the applicable conflict-of-interest procedures.

The organising committee must maintain essential governance and operational records, including role assignments, major decisions, approved changes, and relevant workshop correspondence.

Records must be stored securely and made accessible only to individuals with a legitimate operational need.

Confidential review materials, conduct reports, personal information, and other restricted records must be handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality, data protection, institutional, and host-conference requirements.

The designated Records Custodian must establish an appropriate retention and disposal procedure before submissions open.

Records must not be retained longer than necessary for their legitimate purpose, subject to applicable legal, institutional, host-conference, and publication requirements. Materials relevant to ongoing complaints, investigations, disputes, or legal preservation obligations must not be destroyed while those obligations remain in effect.

Shared-task organising teams are independently responsible for maintaining and managing their own task-specific records, subject to applicable external requirements.

Organisers are responsible for fulfilling their agreed commitments and maintaining reasonable communication concerning their assigned duties.

Where an organiser fails to meet these responsibilities, the workshop may take proportionate action, including adjustment of duties, reassignment, temporary suspension of responsibilities, or removal from an organising role.

Grounds for intervention include:

1. Repeated failure to complete agreed responsibilities without reasonable justification or an approved adjustment.
2. A serious failure or omission that materially threatens the review process, publication requirements, or workshop delivery.
3. Sustained failure to respond to essential operational communications without reasonable explanation.
4. Refusal to cooperate with a necessary and reasonable handover of agreed responsibilities.
5. Misuse of workshop systems, confidential information, or authorised access.
6. A substantiated serious breach of applicable workshop policies.

A failure is considered material when it significantly affects another organiser's ability to complete assigned work, compromises an essential process, or places a published workshop commitment at risk.

Any assessment must consider the organiser's agreed responsibilities, available capacity, dependencies, prior communication, approved absences, emergencies, and reasonable support or adjustments offered.

Disagreement with leadership, constructive criticism, good-faith reporting of concerns, protected characteristics, or refusal to accept additional unagreed responsibilities must not constitute grounds for adverse action.

Operational underperformance must not automatically be classified as misconduct or harassment.

Where an organiser is unable to fulfil an agreed responsibility, the relevant chair should first seek a practical resolution, where appropriate.

This may include clarifying expectations, adjusting deadlines, providing reasonable assistance, reducing responsibilities, or arranging reassignment to another consenting organiser.

The responsible chair must communicate the concern to the affected organiser, identify the outstanding responsibilities, and provide a reasonable opportunity to explain the circumstances or propose a recovery plan.

Where the failure threatens a critical workshop deadline, the General Chair or another authorised non-conflicted chair may arrange immediate operational cover without waiting for completion of a formal removal procedure.

Reassignment of duties does not, by itself, constitute misconduct, disciplinary action, or removal from the organising committee.

No organiser, including the General Chair, is automatically required to assume responsibilities left incomplete by another organiser.

Where serious or repeated non-performance cannot be resolved through reasonable corrective action, formal removal from an organising role may be considered.

The following procedure applies:

1. Written notice: The organiser must receive written notice identifying the concerns, supporting evidence, proposed action, and possible consequences for their role and recognition.
2. Opportunity to respond: The organiser must be given seven calendar days to respond, unless a reasonable extension is warranted by exceptional circumstances.
3. Independent assessment: The General Chair must appoint two non-conflicted organisers or advisers to form a three-person review panel, chaired by the General Chair. The panel must consider the documented evidence, the organiser's response, relevant circumstances, and whether a less restrictive measure would adequately address the concern.

   Where the General Chair is the subject of the concern or has a material conflict of interest, the designated independent governance reviewer must appoint a three-person panel of non-conflicted organisers or advisers, excluding the General Chair. If the governance reviewer is also conflicted or unavailable, the designated alternate must make the appointment. Where no suitable independent appointment is possible internally, assistance must be sought from the host conference.

   All panel members must disclose relevant conflicts of interest before participating. No conflicted individual may participate in the appointment, deliberations, or decision.

4. Decision: Removal requires agreement from at least two members of the three-person panel. The decision must be supported by documented reasons and consideration of proportionate alternatives.
5. Notification: The affected organiser must be informed privately of the decision, its effective date, any required handover, access changes, implications for role-based recognition, and the available appeal procedure under Section 9.5.

Removal from an organising role does not automatically affect authorship, publication rights, or recognition for work already completed. Such matters must be assessed separately under Section 10 and the applicable publication policies.

Any removal affecting an appointment formally recognised by the host conference must also comply with the host's applicable approval or notification requirements.

Where an immediate risk arises concerning workshop delivery, confidential information, system access, participant safety, or binding external deadlines, an authorised non-conflicted chair may implement temporary protective measures.

Such measures may include reassignment of urgent duties, temporary restriction of relevant access, or suspension of specific operational responsibilities.

Temporary measures must be proportionate to the identified risk and must not be presented as a finding of wrongdoing.

The affected organiser must be informed of the reasons as soon as reasonably practicable, and the measures must be reviewed promptly by an appropriate non-conflicted decision-maker.

Permanent removal remains subject to the formal procedure in Section 9.3, except where a binding external requirement necessitates a different process.

An organiser may request a review of a formal removal decision within seven calendar days of receiving written notification.

A review may be requested on grounds of:

• Material procedural error.
• Undisclosed or improperly managed conflict of interest.
• Disproportionate action.
• Significant new evidence that could reasonably affect the decision.

The review must be conducted by an independent, non-conflicted person or panel that did not participate in the original decision.

The reviewer should normally issue a reasoned decision within ten working days or communicate an appropriate revised timetable.

Necessary temporary operational arrangements may remain in effect while the review is pending.

Where no sufficiently independent reviewer is available within the workshop, assistance may be sought from the host conference, subject to its willingness and authority to assist.

In accordance with Section 7, each Shared-Task Lead is accountable for managing the staffing, workload, performance concerns, reassignment, and replacement arrangements within their respective shared-task organising team. The Deputy Lead provides agreed support and continuity.

Shared-Task Leads must ensure that responsibilities are clearly allocated, deadlines are monitored, and operational difficulties are addressed promptly within their teams.

The AbjadNLP main organising committee is not responsible for monitoring individual shared-task organisers, investigating routine shared-task non-performance, arranging internal replacements, or assuming duties left incomplete by shared-task team members.

Shared-Task Leads must ensure that staffing changes do not compromise agreed workshop-wide commitments or applicable host-conference and publication requirements.

Any change affecting the workshop programme, official organising records, or external commitments must be communicated promptly to the General Chair.

Where a shared task cannot meet its essential obligations, the General Chair may coordinate changes to its inclusion in the workshop programme, subject to applicable host requirements and a fair opportunity for the Shared-Task Lead to respond.

This separation does not restrict the authority of competent external bodies concerning misconduct, publication ethics, or other matters falling within their jurisdiction.

Performance concerns, reassignment decisions, and removal proceedings must be handled confidentially and disclosed only to individuals with a legitimate need to know.

Public organiser listings may be updated to reflect current appointments, but allegations, personal circumstances, and confidential reasons for departure must not be published as informal sanctions.

Harassment, discrimination, publication-ethics allegations, and other matters falling under external policies must be referred to the competent authority in accordance with Section 15.

The procedures and response periods in this section do not replace or limit the authority of applicable host-conference, institutional, or external ethics procedures.

Appointment to the organising committee, recognition of service, proceedings editorship, and authorship of scientific publications are distinct forms of contribution and recognition.

Holding an organising position does not automatically confer entitlement to proceedings editorship, paper authorship, or other publication credit. Recognition must reflect actual contributions and comply with applicable publication requirements.

Withdrawal or removal from an organising role does not invalidate qualifying contributions already made.

The official workshop website must maintain an accurate list of current organising committee members and their respective roles.

The final organising committee and acknowledgement records must reflect substantive contributions to the workshop's preparation, management, and delivery.

An individual who accepts an organising appointment but does not perform substantive agreed responsibilities is not automatically entitled to final recognition as an active organiser.

Where an organiser withdraws or is removed, their contribution and eligibility for recognition must be assessed fairly under Section 9, taking account of completed work and applicable publication requirements.

Individuals who have made meaningful contributions may be acknowledged appropriately, including for partial service, where relevant and with their consent.

Changes to current organiser listings do not require the alteration or removal of accurate historical records or previously published acknowledgements.

Proceedings editorship is a substantive editorial responsibility and is not automatically conferred by appointment to the organising committee.

Subject to applicable host-conference and publisher requirements, an individual may be nominated as a proceedings editor where they have made a substantial and demonstrable contribution to the scientific or editorial management of the proceedings.

Qualifying contributions may include:

1. Leading or substantially coordinating the scientific review and selection process.
2. Managing significant aspects of review integrity, scientific decision-making, or editorial quality.
3. Preparing, validating, or coordinating the technical production of the proceedings.
4. Undertaking substantial editorial coordination necessary for the preparation and delivery of the final volume.
5. Reviewing and approving the relevant final editorial materials and accepting responsibility for appropriate publication-related queries or corrections.

Appointment to a chair position, seniority, reputation, occasional advice, meeting attendance, or nominal committee membership alone does not establish eligibility for proceedings editorship.

Publicity, advisory, and other organisational contributions must be recognised appropriately but do not automatically qualify an individual for proceedings editorship.

The proposed proceedings editor list and ordering must be determined through a documented, contribution-based process, subject to applicable host and publisher requirements.

An organiser who has not made a qualifying editorial contribution may be omitted from the proceedings editor list, irrespective of their formal title.

Conversely, withdrawal or removal from an organising position does not automatically justify excluding an individual who has already made a qualifying editorial contribution.

Disputed editorship decisions must be assessed independently and, where necessary, referred to the authorised host-conference publication representatives or publisher.

Authorship of workshop papers must be determined by actual scholarly contributions and the applicable publication and authorship policies.

Organising status, committee membership, seniority, institutional position, funding, or personal relationships do not independently establish authorship entitlement.

Individuals who make qualifying contributions must be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in manuscript preparation, review relevant drafts, and provide any required final approval.

Authorship must not be offered as a reward for organisational service or withheld as a penalty for disagreements, withdrawal, or failure to complete unrelated workshop duties.

The inclusion, removal, or reordering of authors after submission must follow the applicable authorship-change and publication procedures.

No organising chair may require inclusion as an author as a condition of submission, review, acceptance, or publication.

In accordance with Section 7, shared-task organising teams are independently responsible for preparing their shared-task overview papers, coordinating system-description papers, documenting contributions, and managing authorship arrangements within their respective teams.

Authorship of shared-task overview papers must reflect qualifying scholarly contributions under the applicable authorship policy.

Shared-task organisers must establish a provisional contribution-based author list during manuscript preparation and provide contributors with appropriate opportunities to participate in drafting, revision, and final approval.

Membership of the AbjadNLP main organising committee does not automatically confer authorship of shared-task overview papers, system-description papers, datasets, or other shared-task publications.

Likewise, appointment as a Shared Task Chair does not automatically establish authorship entitlement to every paper associated with that task.

The AbjadNLP General Chair, Programme Chairs, Publication Chairs, and other main committee members have no authority to require their inclusion in shared-task publications solely by virtue of their workshop roles.

Shared-task organisers are responsible for resolving routine contribution and authorship questions within their teams, subject to applicable publication-ethics procedures and independent handling of conflicts.

The AbjadNLP main organising committee is not responsible for drafting, reviewing authorship contributions, or managing internal authorship arrangements for shared-task publications.

Changes to submitted author lists must comply with applicable ACL authorship-change requirements, where governing, and the relevant host-conference and publisher policies.

Authorship disputes must be handled through the appropriate independent or authorised publication-ethics process.

Operational disciplinary procedures under Section 9 do not authorise the removal of earned authorship or the unilateral alteration of submitted or published author information.

Corrections to published papers, author lists, and publication metadata must be processed through the authorised publication channel.

No organiser may alter publication records, remove qualifying contributors, or withhold legitimate scholarly recognition as retaliation for disagreement, withdrawal, or a good-faith complaint.

Authors must submit their work through the appropriate submission track and comply with the requirements published in the official AbjadNLP Call for Papers (CFP).

The proposed page limits for regular workshop submissions are:

• Long papers: Up to eight pages.
• Short papers: Up to four pages.

References are excluded from these limits. Submissions must use the prescribed ACL paper format.

The official CFP must specify the treatment of limitations sections, ethics statements, appendices, supplementary materials, and any additional pages permitted for camera-ready submissions. Page allowances applicable to the main conference do not automatically apply to AbjadNLP.

Papers submitted directly to AbjadNLP must use the designated workshop submission platform and follow the published review procedures.

An ACL Rolling Review (ARR) commitment track may operate only after its availability and conditions have been confirmed by the workshop and relevant host authorities.

Where offered, the CFP must specify eligible ARR review cycles, required review materials, permitted revisions, commitment procedures, and applicable deadlines.

Submission through ARR does not guarantee acceptance to AbjadNLP. The same manuscript must not be considered simultaneously through both the direct submission and ARR commitment routes.

Archival submissions must satisfy applicable originality, prior-publication, and overlap requirements.

Unless expressly permitted under the published submission rules, the same or substantially overlapping manuscript must not be under simultaneous consideration at another archival publication venue.

Authors must disclose relevant prior versions, related submissions, and potential publication overlap through the designated confidential submission process.

Any presentation-only track for previously published work must be announced separately and must not result in duplicate archival publication.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submissions are complete, accurate, and compliant with the published requirements.

Authors must:

1. Submission completeness: Submit a complete and readable manuscript through the designated system before the published deadline, including required declarations and supplementary materials.
2. Author agreement: Ensure that all listed authors have agreed to the submission, author list, and submitted version, and that the corresponding author is authorised to communicate on their behalf.
3. Anonymity: Prepare manuscripts and supplementary materials in accordance with the applicable anonymous-review requirements, including the removal of identifying information where required.
4. Prior work: Cite relevant earlier research appropriately and comply with applicable rules concerning preprints, self-citation, and previously disseminated versions.
5. Conflicts of interest: Declare relevant conflicts accurately through the designated submission system and promptly report any material changes.
6. Communication: Provide a valid, actively monitored corresponding-author email address and respond to essential editorial or review-related communications.
7. Research integrity: Ensure that submitted work complies with applicable research ethics, originality, data-use, and publication requirements.
8. Review independence: Refrain from attempting to influence reviewers or Programme Chairs through private contact, inducements, reciprocal review arrangements, or requests for preferential treatment.

Questions, corrections, and procedural concerns must be submitted through the official workshop communication channels.

The Programme Chairs are responsible for ensuring that submissions are assessed consistently against the published eligibility requirements and scientific evaluation criteria.

Submissions may be rejected without external review where a clear and material eligibility requirement has not been met, including:

• Submissions outside the workshop's published scope.
• Manuscripts exceeding the applicable page limits.
• Material violations of the required anonymisation procedure.
• Incomplete submissions or missing mandatory declarations.
• Other clearly stated eligibility requirements in the official CFP.

Any rejection without review must be supported by a documented reason identifying the applicable requirement.

Where a minor administrative or technical issue can be corrected without compromising fairness, the Programme Chairs may permit correction under a consistent procedure.

Individual deadline extensions are not guaranteed. However, documented technical failures, accessibility needs, emergencies, and reasonable adjustment requests must be considered fairly and consistently, within applicable host-conference constraints.

Scientific acceptance decisions must be based on the published evaluation criteria, relevant reviewer assessments, and documented Programme Chair deliberations.

An allegation of misconduct, automated detection result, or similarity score alone does not establish a policy violation.

Where an adverse decision depends on disputed facts or suspected misconduct, the matter must be handled through the applicable procedure, including an appropriate opportunity for the affected authors to respond before a final misconduct finding.

Good-faith questions, procedural challenges, and requests for clarification must not negatively influence the scientific assessment of a submission.

Submissions to AbjadNLP shared tasks are administered independently by the respective shared-task organising teams in accordance with Section 7.

Each shared-task organising team is responsible for establishing and publishing its submission requirements, managing participant submissions, coordinating the review process, making acceptance decisions, and communicating outcomes to authors.

The review and acceptance of system-description papers must comply with Section 7.1.2, including its minimum review requirements. The AbjadNLP Programme Chairs and Programme Committee have no responsibility for managing or reviewing these papers.

Shared-task overview papers submitted by shared-task organisers undergo independent review managed by the AbjadNLP Programme Chairs, in accordance with Section 7.1.3.

Shared-task organisers must clearly distinguish task participation, system-description paper submission, and eligibility for archival publication in their published instructions.

All shared-task submissions remain subject to applicable host-conference, publication, and research-integrity requirements.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical conduct of their submitted research.

All submissions must comply with applicable publication-ethics requirements, including the ACL Publication Ethics Policy where adopted or otherwise applicable, and relevant host-conference and publisher rules.

Authors must:

1. Research integrity: Report methods, data, experiments, and findings accurately, distinguish supported conclusions from speculation, and disclose material limitations affecting the interpretation of results.
2. Originality and attribution: Properly acknowledge prior research, datasets, software, and other contributions, and comply with applicable originality, plagiarism, and publication-overlap requirements.
3. Generative AI assistance: Comply with applicable requirements concerning the use and disclosure of generative AI tools. Human authors remain responsible for all submitted content, and AI systems must not be listed as authors.
4. Data provenance and permissions: Identify relevant data sources and ensure that collection, processing, use, and distribution comply with applicable permissions, licences, and legal requirements.
5. Human participants and sensitive data: Address relevant privacy, consent, confidentiality, participant protection, and research oversight requirements. Authors must not claim to have obtained approvals or permissions that were not granted.
6. Reproducibility and transparency: Provide sufficient methodological detail to support evaluation of the research, subject to legitimate restrictions concerning privacy, licensing, security, or culturally sensitive materials.
7. Ethics and limitations statements: Complete required ethics, limitations, and responsible-research declarations accurately and provide explanations where particular requirements are not applicable or cannot reasonably be satisfied.

A justified restriction on releasing datasets, models, or other research materials does not automatically make a submission ineligible. Authors must explain relevant restrictions and their implications for reproducibility.

A negative response to an ethics or reproducibility checklist item does not, by itself, establish misconduct or justify rejection. Such responses must be assessed in context and in accordance with the published evaluation criteria.

Given AbjadNLP's focus on languages written in Arabic-derived scripts, authors are expected to exercise particular care when working with underrepresented language communities, identifiable individuals, sensitive personal information, or culturally restricted materials.

Where relevant, submissions should explain the linguistic and community context of the data, the basis for its collection and use, potential representational limitations, and risks arising from inappropriate generalisation.

Languages sharing a writing system must not be treated as linguistically or culturally interchangeable without appropriate justification.

These expectations must be applied proportionately to the nature, scope, and risks of the research.

Acceptance of a paper is subject to completion of any required revisions and compliance with applicable publication requirements.

The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating the final submission and ensuring that all co-authors have approved the final manuscript and author information as required by the applicable publication policy.

Authors must:

1. Submit the camera-ready manuscript through the designated publication channel within the published deadline.
2. Address mandatory revisions and corrections communicated through the authorised review or publication process.
3. Provide accurate paper titles, author names and ordering, affiliations, and other required publication metadata.
4. Complete applicable copyright, licensing, consent, and publication forms.
5. Ensure that permissions have been obtained for third-party material included in the final manuscript.
6. Review publication proofs or final metadata within the communicated review period and promptly report material errors.
7. Obtain appropriate authorisation before making substantive changes to the paper's claims, scope, or authorship.

The Publication Chairs are responsible for providing camera-ready instructions, technical requirements, and an official contact channel for authors of accepted regular workshop papers and shared-task overview papers. Publication communication and camera-ready coordination for shared-task system-description papers remain the responsibility of the respective shared-task organising teams under Section 7.

Acceptance does not constitute confirmation that all publication requirements have been satisfied or that the workshop has independently verified every permission or declaration.

Authorship changes must follow the applicable formal procedure. Silence or failure to respond must not be treated as evidence of co-author consent where affirmative approval is required.

The official Call for Papers and acceptance notifications must clearly communicate applicable registration, presentation, and publication conditions established by the workshop and host conference.

These requirements must identify any mandatory registration or presentation obligations, permitted presentation formats, relevant deadlines, and available accessibility arrangements.

Where presentation is required, authors must arrange an eligible presenter and notify the Programme Chairs promptly if circumstances affect their ability to participate.

Reasonable alternatives should be considered where feasible for authors experiencing visa difficulties, illness, accessibility barriers, or other significant circumstances, subject to applicable host-conference requirements.

Any decision affecting publication eligibility because of registration or presentation requirements must be based on a previously communicated and applicable rule, with appropriate notice and proportionate consideration of the circumstances.

Workshop organisers must not independently remove or promise to remove papers from published proceedings outside the authorised publication process.

Before publication, withdrawal requests must be submitted through the designated official channel and must identify the relevant paper and provide any required co-author agreement.

After publication, requests for corrections, authorship changes, expressions of concern, or retractions must follow the applicable host-conference and publisher procedures.

Publication decisions must remain independent of unrelated organisational disagreements or disputes.

An author's disagreement with workshop leadership, good-faith complaint, or withdrawal from an organising role must not be used as grounds to reject an otherwise eligible paper or penalise uninvolved co-authors.

In accordance with Section 7, shared-task organising teams are independently responsible for communicating and administering publication requirements for system-description papers submitted to their respective shared tasks.

Shared-task organisers must provide participants with clear instructions concerning submission eligibility, peer review, acceptance, camera-ready preparation, author information, and applicable publication conditions.

The AbjadNLP main organising committee and Programme Chairs do not manage the review, acceptance, or preparation of shared-task system-description papers.

Shared-task overview papers remain subject to the independent review arrangements established in Section 7.1.3.

All shared-task publications must comply with applicable research-integrity, authorship, host-conference, and publisher requirements.

This allocation of responsibilities does not remove any mandatory publication or compliance obligations imposed by the host conference or publisher on the workshop as a whole.

All submissions must be reviewed and assessed independently in accordance with applicable conflict-of-interest requirements. AbjadNLP adopts the relevant ACL conflict-of-interest standards, including conflicts arising from authorship, recent collaboration or supervision, shared institutional affiliations, personal relationships, and other circumstances that could reasonably compromise impartiality. [5]

Individuals with a conflict of interest must not participate in reviewing, discussing, or deciding the affected submission, or access confidential review information beyond their authorised role.

Papers authored or co-authored by serving AbjadNLP organising chairs must be handled independently of the conflicted individuals.

Before submissions open, the General Chair, provided they have no relevant conflict of interest, must designate an independent academic Conflict of Interest Chair and an appropriate alternate from among suitably qualified, non-conflicted organisers or advisers. Where the General Chair is conflicted in an appointment, the independent governance reviewer or their non-conflicted alternate must make that appointment. These appointments must be recorded in the Organising Committee Register under Section 17.

The independent Conflict of Interest Chair is responsible for overseeing the review and decision process for papers involving conflicted organising chairs, including reviewer assignments, access restrictions, scientific deliberations, and acceptance decisions.

Where no suitable independent appointment can be made within the workshop, assistance must be sought from the host conference.

No conflicted Programme Chair or other organiser may influence the appointment, review, deliberation, or decision concerning their own submission.

Equivalent safeguards apply to shared-task overview papers authored by shared-task organisers. Submission-system permissions must enforce recusals and prevent unauthorised access to confidential reviews and deliberations.

As an AbjadNLP-specific rule, papers co-authored by serving organising chairs are ineligible for workshop best-paper awards. This restriction must be published in the Call for Papers and does not affect submission or acceptance eligibility.

Reviewers must evaluate submissions against the published scientific criteria, considering the research question, methodology, evidence, linguistic context, contribution, clarity, and limitations.

Reviews must assess scientific quality rather than institutional reputation, academic seniority, language prominence, or access to substantial computational resources. Resource papers, negative results, replication studies, and community-based research must receive appropriate methodological assessment.

Reviews must provide substantive, evidence-based reasoning identifying relevant strengths, weaknesses, and the basis for recommendations.

Personal attacks, discriminatory language, coercive citation requests, unsupported misconduct allegations, and attempts to improperly influence decisions are prohibited.

Reviewers must personally read and assess assigned submissions and provide their own substantive scientific reasoning.

Generative AI systems must not produce the first draft of a review or meta-review. Any permitted assistance must comply with applicable ACL, ARR, host-conference, and review-platform requirements. [9]

Confidential manuscripts, reviews, and deliberations must not be disclosed to unauthorised individuals or uploaded to external services that do not meet applicable confidentiality requirements.

The Programme Chairs must monitor review quality, obtain replacement reviews where necessary, and ensure that acceptance decisions have an adequate evidential basis.

For regular direct submissions and shared-task overview papers, AbjadNLP aims to obtain three substantive reviews per paper.

Where an exceptional review shortfall cannot be resolved, the Programme Chairs must document the attempts made to obtain sufficient reviews and ensure that any decision remains consistent with applicable review requirements and procedural fairness.

Administrative screening must not be represented as independent peer review.

The review and acceptance of shared-task system-description papers are governed by Section 7.1.2. These responsibilities rest exclusively with the respective shared-task organising teams and do not form part of the AbjadNLP Programme Chairs' or Programme Committee's assigned duties.

Authors may request reconsideration of a submission decision where there is a credible concern involving a material procedural error, an unmanaged conflict of interest, a significant factual misunderstanding, or a serious breach of the published review procedure.

Disagreement with a reasonable scholarly judgement alone does not justify reopening a decision.

Appeals must normally be submitted through the designated official channel within seven calendar days of notification.

A non-conflicted reviewer or chair who did not participate in the original decision must assess the request and obtain independent advice where necessary.

A reasoned written outcome should normally be provided within ten working days, subject to applicable host-conference requirements and operational constraints.

Where host or publication deadlines limit available remedies, the affected author must be informed.

Good-faith appeals and requests for clarification must not result in retaliation or adverse treatment.

Academic appeals do not replace the applicable reporting procedures for harassment, research misconduct, or publication-ethics concerns.

Appeals concerning shared-task system-description papers are managed by the respective shared-task organising teams under their published procedures, subject to applicable external requirements.

AbjadNLP adopts the ACL Anti-Harassment Policy as a minimum standard for workshop-related conduct, subject to applicable host-conference requirements. [2]

All participants are expected to maintain a professional environment supporting rigorous scientific discussion, respectful disagreement, and participation without harassment, intimidation, discrimination, or retaliation.

These standards apply equally to organisers, advisers, reviewers, authors, speakers, volunteers, shared-task teams, and attendees.

They cover workshop sessions, reviewing activities, official correspondence, online communication channels, shared-task platforms, and workshop-associated events.

All individuals participating in AbjadNLP activities must:

1. Maintain professional communication: Address others respectfully, including when expressing disagreement, providing critical reviews, rejecting submissions, or discussing incomplete responsibilities.
2. Respect individual dignity: Respect names, pronouns, linguistic backgrounds, cultural and religious practices, and accessibility needs.
3. Maintain appropriate boundaries: Respect reasonable communication hours, agreed working arrangements, personal privacy, and professional boundaries.
4. Protect confidential information: Refrain from recording private conversations or distributing confidential correspondence without appropriate authorisation or another legitimate basis.
5. Follow legitimate instructions: Comply with reasonable session-chair directions, moderation decisions, and applicable workshop procedures while retaining access to appropriate reporting or appeal mechanisms.
6. Respond appropriately to concerns: Stop conduct reasonably identified as unwelcome or inappropriate. An affected person is not required to confront the individual before reporting a concern.

AbjadNLP prohibits harassment, discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, and other conduct that materially undermines a safe and professional workshop environment.

Prohibited conduct includes:

1. Discriminatory abuse, degrading personal comments, or targeted harassment.
2. Threats, stalking, deliberate intimidation, or unwanted sexual attention or physical contact.
3. Harassing photography, recording, or disclosure of private personal information.
4. Repeated targeted disruption of scientific sessions or official communication channels.
5. Misuse of organisational authority to demand personal favours, unauthorised work, unjustified authorship, or silence concerning legitimate complaints.
6. Threats to academic opportunities, publication outcomes, committee recognition, or professional reputation intended to punish or discourage good-faith reporting.
7. Persistent hostile private communications, deliberate public humiliation, or other abusive conduct presented as performance management.

These prohibitions apply regardless of academic seniority, institutional affiliation, organising position, or scientific reputation.

Rigorous scientific criticism, rejection of a submission, reasonable requests to complete agreed responsibilities, and fair application of the workshop's performance procedures do not automatically constitute harassment.

However, academic disagreement, scientific authority, or performance management must not be used to justify personal abuse, discriminatory treatment, intimidation, or retaliation.

Concerns must be assessed according to the conduct, circumstances, and applicable policy rather than the position or status of the individuals involved.

Scientific presentations may legitimately include offensive language, discriminatory expressions, or other sensitive material where necessary for research.

Presenters must use such material only where relevant, provide appropriate context, and give advance content notice where reasonably necessary.

Sensitive examples must not be used to target, humiliate, or intimidate participants or communities.

These expectations apply to papers, presentations, posters, demonstrations, and shared-task materials. [3]

AbjadNLP supports reasonable and feasible adjustments to participation, communication, and agreed organisational responsibilities.

Requests for adjustments must be handled respectfully and without unnecessary collection or disclosure of sensitive personal information.

Retaliation against an individual for making a good-faith report, supporting another person, participating as a witness, or exercising an available appeal right is prohibited.

A complaint that cannot be substantiated is not automatically false, malicious, or abusive.

Any allegation of deliberate misuse of a reporting procedure must be supported by separate evidence and handled through an appropriate independent process.

No person who is the subject of a complaint may unilaterally determine that the complaint was malicious or impose adverse action for making it.

Before submissions open, AbjadNLP must publish at least two designated local conduct contacts, their monitored contact information, and direct links to the applicable host-conference and ACL reporting mechanisms. [2, 8]

At least one local contact must provide an alternative reporting route for concerns involving the General Chair or another senior organiser.

Individuals may report concerns directly to a competent external authority without first obtaining permission from the AbjadNLP organising committee.

The appropriate reporting routes are:

1. Submission and review concerns: The Programme Chairs or designated independent academic reviewer.
2. Organiser responsibilities and service-credit disputes: The applicable non-conflicted governance reviewer under Sections 9 and 10.
3. Harassment and participant conduct: Designated local conduct contacts, the host-conference reporting authority, or the ACL Professional Conduct Committee (PCC), where within its jurisdiction.
4. Authorship and publication integrity: The relevant host-conference or publisher authority, including the ACL Publication Ethics Committee (PEC), where applicable.
5. Immediate safety concerns: Host-conference security, venue personnel, or appropriate emergency services.

Individuals must be able to bypass any reporting contact who is implicated in the concern or has a material conflict of interest.

Shared-task organisers are responsible for handling routine task-specific scientific and operational concerns. Allegations involving harassment, serious misconduct, publication ethics, or conflicts requiring independent handling must remain accessible to the relevant independent or external reporting channels.

Reports may be submitted by an affected individual or a witness and need not initially contain a complete evidential record.

Reporting contacts should request only information reasonably necessary to understand the concern, including relevant events, available supporting information, and any immediate assistance requested.

Individuals must not be required to confront the person complained about, attempt mediation, or provide a complete evidence bundle before their concern is received.

Anonymous reports may be considered for risk assessment and proportionate protective action, although anonymity may limit the available investigative procedures.

Local conduct contacts should normally acknowledge receipt within two working days, where contact information is available.

Immediate safety concerns must be prioritised without waiting for the ordinary acknowledgement period.

The receiving contact must explain their role, available reporting routes, confidentiality limits, and whether the matter falls within the workshop's authority.

Reports must be handled discreetly and shared only with authorised individuals who have a legitimate need to know.

Before referring a report outside the workshop, the receiving contact should consult the reporting individual where practicable and follow the consent and confidentiality requirements of the receiving authority.

Where disclosure is required by law or reasonably necessary to address an immediate serious risk, only the necessary information may be disclosed, with appropriate notice where feasible.

Confidentiality must not be presented as an unconditional guarantee of anonymity.

Individuals responding to allegations must receive a fair opportunity to address the relevant substance through the competent procedure, while unnecessary disclosure of personal information must be avoided.

Conduct reports and related evidence must be stored separately from ordinary workshop operational records.

Access must be restricted to authorised case handlers. Allegations must not be circulated through general organising committee messages, shared-task registers, or public communication channels.

Within its delegated authority, AbjadNLP may implement proportionate measures necessary to protect participants, preserve confidentiality, or maintain workshop operations.

Such measures may include:

1. Issuing appropriate behavioural or communication instructions.
2. Arranging separate communication channels or session assignments.
3. Moderating official workshop communication channels.
4. Temporarily restricting access to workshop-controlled systems or activities.
5. Referring concerns to the competent host-conference or external authority.

Temporary protective measures are not findings of misconduct and must not be presented as disciplinary conclusions.

Restrictions affecting conference registration, venue-wide participation, refunds, wider ACL activities, or published records require action by the competent authority where those matters fall outside AbjadNLP's delegated powers.

Formal harassment findings and sanctions must follow the applicable authorised procedure.

Any measure must be proportionate to the available evidence, severity of the concern, immediate risk, and applicable procedural safeguards.

The affected individual must receive appropriate information about the decision and available review process, subject to legitimate confidentiality and safety requirements.

AbjadNLP does not authorise public shaming, informal blacklists, collective punishment of co-authors, or retaliation against individuals who report concerns in good faith.

The ACL Professional Conduct Committee, ACL Publication Ethics Committee, host-conference authorities, and relevant institutions determine their own jurisdiction and procedures.

AbjadNLP's adoption of ACL standards does not independently extend the jurisdiction of ACL bodies to matters outside their established remit.

Where an external body lacks jurisdiction, the designated contact must identify or seek an appropriate alternative reporting route where reasonably possible.

Workshop-specific acknowledgement periods, review targets, and interim measures do not replace or shorten any applicable external investigation, decision-making, or appeal procedure.

The organising committee must maintain an agreed workshop schedule covering major submission, review, notification, publication, and event-delivery milestones. The schedule must comply with confirmed host-conference requirements and distinguish binding external deadlines from internal planning targets.

Each organiser is individually responsible for checking the official workshop schedule, monitoring deadlines relevant to their assigned role, and ensuring that their agreed tasks and deliverables are completed on time. Organisers must independently verify applicable deadlines and requirements, including updates issued by the host conference, and must not rely solely on reminders or follow-up from the General Chair or other organisers.

Each major milestone must have a designated responsible chair or team. Organisers must plan their work accordingly, coordinate necessary dependencies, and promptly communicate any anticipated delays or risks that could affect workshop delivery.

Changes affecting published deadlines or host-conference commitments require approval from the relevant authority and must be communicated to affected parties. Organisers remain responsible for checking and complying with approved changes relevant to their duties.

The General Chair oversees coordination of the overall schedule but is not responsible for individually monitoring, reminding, or following up on every organiser's deadlines, nor for completing deliverables assigned to other organisers.

Shared-task organising teams are independently responsible for maintaining their own task-specific schedules, monitoring applicable deadlines, and completing all associated responsibilities. They must also meet agreed workshop-wide milestones and applicable host-conference requirements, in accordance with Section 7.

The workshop must maintain an up-to-date Organising Committee Register identifying current appointees, their agreed roles and responsibilities, designated leads and deputies, and relevant reporting contacts.

Individual appointments and role allocations must be recorded in the register rather than embedded in this policy. The register may be updated following appointments, withdrawals, replacements, or agreed changes in responsibilities without requiring formal amendment of the policy.

The register must identify the following independent appointments and their designated alternates:

1. Independent Governance Reviewer: Responsible for appointing an independent review panel where the General Chair is conflicted or is the subject of a complaint, in accordance with Section 9.
2. Academic Conflict of Interest Chair: Responsible for overseeing the independent review and decision-making process for submissions involving conflicted organising chairs, in accordance with Section 13.1.

Individuals appointed to these functions must be suitably qualified and free from relevant conflicts of interest. Where an appointed individual is conflicted or unavailable, the designated non-conflicted alternate must assume the relevant responsibility.

Appointment to a role does not automatically constitute acceptance of additional responsibilities. Any substantial changes to assigned duties must be communicated and agreed upon by the affected organiser.

The responsibilities and authority of each role are governed by Sections 4–8, with the relevant procedures for reassignment, removal, and recognition established in Sections 9 and 10.

Official sources checked on 13 October 2026. The links are authoritative references for the requirements identified in this draft; local operating rules are AbjadNLP proposals. Preserve a dated record of the versions adopted, notify material changes and recheck requirements before major milestones. No inference of formal ACL or COLING endorsement is intended.