This tutorial will cover the theory and practice of reviewing research in natural language processing. Heavy reviewing burdens on natural language processing researchers have made it clear that our community needs to increase the size of our pool of potential reviewers. Simultaneously, notable “false negatives”---rejection by our conferences of work that was later shown to be tremendously important after acceptance by other conferences—have raised awareness of the fact that our reviewing practices leave something to be desired. We do not often talk about “false positives” with respect to conference papers, but leaders in the field have noted that we seem to have a publication bias towards papers that report high performance, with perhaps not much else of interest in them. It need not be this way. Reviewing is a learnable skill, and you will learn it here via lectures and a considerable amount of hands-on practice.

Background: Parallel corpora are used to train and evaluate machine translation systems. To alleviate the cost of producing parallel resources for evaluation campaigns, existing corpora are leveraged. However, little information may be available about the methods used for producing the corpus, including translation direction. Objective: To gain insight on MEDLINE parallel corpus used in the biomedical task at the Workshop on Machine Translation in 2019 (WMT 2019). Material and Methods: Contact information for the authors of MEDLINE articles included in the English/Spanish (EN/ES), English/French (EN/FR), and English/Portuguese (EN/PT) WMT 2019 test sets was obtained from PubMed and publisher websites. The authors were asked about their abstract writing practices in a survey. Results: The response rate was above 20%. Authors reported that they are mainly native speakers of languages other than English. Although manual translation, sometimes via professional translation services, was commonly used for abstract translation, authors of articles in the EN/ES and EN/PT sets also relied on post-edited machine translation. Discussion: This study provides a characterization of MEDLINE authors’ language skills and abstract writing practices. Conclusion: The information collected in this study will be used to inform test set design for the next WMT biomedical task.