Is the ACL Responsible NLP Checklist a Box-Ticking Exercise? A Large-Scale Analysis of EMNLP 2025
Authors: Nusrath Jinnath, Wei Zhao
Organizations: The Aberdeen NLP Research Group University of Aberdeen
Abstract
Responsible NLP practice includes a) transparency, b) ethics, and c) societal impacts. The Responsible NLP Checklist aims to push these goals, and promote responsible practice. Recently, ACL released the EMNLP 2025 Checklists to aid transparency on the current research practice, which we focus on. We curate and release the first two datasets of: a) all the checklist responses and justifications from the EMNLP 2025 Main and Finding tracks; b) checklist reference linking to paper sections. We also provide the first analysis of recent EMNLP Checklists, by examining 73,922 responses and justifications to them. For the Main track, we find that authors isolate ethics questions of the Checklist from the paper's bulk, mimicking the trend of ethics being an afterthought. We then examine \texttt{NO} responses. We find 44.9% of justifications are poor or bad-faith, being brief or empty. Then, we find significant issues with the checklist design and effort of authors, namely that 6% of all checklists contained logical contradictions between parent and child responses. We also find evidence of surface compliance for responsible ethics, with 53% authors dismissing potential risks or social impacts of their work, for which there should be none. We compare this to the Findings track, noticing a similar trend in both tracks. Lastly, we discuss the implications of the checklist design and provide recommendations for future checklist iterations. Including: a) enforcing a minimum word count, b) enforcing more scrutiny on the risks of appliances.
Transparent and standardized reporting is essential for reproducible scientific research, yet adherence to reporting guidelines remains inconsistent because of the manual effort required to select and complete checklists. We present CheckSupport, an open-source, locally deployable system that uses large language models to automate the recommendation of reporting checklists and the evidence-grounded completion of checklists for scientific manuscripts. CheckSupport employs a staged prompting strategy that decomposes reporting workflows into constrained inference tasks, prioritizing faithful extraction over generative text synthesis. All inference is performed locally using instruction-tuned models, preserving data privacy and enabling reproducible, auditable workflows. Evaluated on a corpus of peer-reviewed manuscripts, CheckSupport achieved 90% overall accuracy for checklist recommendations and 88% overall accuracy for item-level completion while operating on CPU-only hardware. On average, the wall-clock time per manuscript was 12.5 seconds, including the checklist recommendation and full checklist completion. These results demonstrate that large language models, when applied as structured inference components, can reduce reporting burden and support more transparent and reproducible scientific reporting across disciplines.
Reasoning models are increasingly used in settings where the final answer is not the only object of review: educational tools may show students intermediate steps, decision-support systems may require human oversight, and audit workflows may inspect traces for misleading or biased input. In such settings, two responses can receive the same final-answer score while differing in whether the trace explicitly flags injected biasing content. Accuracy-only evaluation collapses these cases. We study this gap as a measurement blind spot for responsible evaluation and introduce a minimal trace-level diagnostic with two axes: \emph{susceptibility} (whether the bias breaks a previously correct answer) and \emph{acknowledgment} (whether the trace contains a rubric-defined surface reference to the injected content). Across thousands of biased GSM8K trials, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet~4 have similar susceptibility rates (1.3% vs. 1.2%) but substantially different acknowledgment rates (13.0% vs. 75.0%) under the same rubric.
Since late 2022, a Limitations section has become mandatory at many top-tier NLP conferences. The growing number of accepted papers at these venues has resulted in a vast corpus of self-reported limitations that cannot all be manually reviewed, yet remains systematically unanalyzed. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct a large-scale analysis of the Limitations sections from ACL and EMNLP papers published between 2020 and 2025 to understand what researchers disclose about their own work. To do so, we implement a novel human-AI framework for iterative hybrid qualitative coding. This framework enables us to investigate trends in self-reported limitations over time, their correlations with specific paper attributes, and the writing patterns that recur around these disclosures. Our findings offer a critical reflection on the diverse reported challenges as well as the self-reporting practices of researchers in the NLP community.
Tawan Thaepprasit, Peeranuth Kehasukcharoen, Ding Wang +3