Attention NAACL-HLT 2013 Authors and Reviewers: The review form has changed slightly from past years, and we'd like to call your attention to some of the changes. First, the questions have been re-ordered to first call attention to the most important aspects of a paper. The remaining changes are in hopes of making the review options more clear, and giving them more focus. The changes we feel are most important are listed first:

• Overall Recommendation: Now focuses on whether a reader is likely to learn something from this paper. The top two options for ratings are new and more specific than before.
• Appropriateness: the scope has been expanded to also welcome papers that address more linguistic aspects of CL.
• Thoroughness: Now has an opportunity to reviewers to give high scores to papers that show not just when their approach works, but also when it does not.
• Originality/Innovativeness: This has been expanded to highlight originality not just in approach, but also in problem scope. We also added a note that a low score here should be justified with direct literature pointers in the review body.
• Clarity: The focus here is on understandability: could the reader actually figure out what was done and why it was done.
• Meaningful Comparison: The new focus is on whether the authors do a good job of situating their work The description of the options is completely new to focus on comparison, not bibliography.
• Impact of Ideas or Results: Replaced notion of whether this work will be cited with whether it will be read and used.
• Presentation Format: This is no longer shown to the authors, and reviewers are given the option of selecting "No Opinion"