  Scientific progress in NLP rests on the reproducibility of researchers'
claims. The *CL conferences created the NLP Reproducibility Checklist in 2020
to be completed by authors at submission to remind them of key information to
include. We provide the first analysis of the Checklist by examining 10,405
anonymous responses to it. First, we find evidence of an increase in reporting
of information on efficiency, validation performance, summary statistics, and
hyperparameters after the Checklist's introduction. Further, we show acceptance
rate grows for submissions with more Yes responses. We find that the 44% of
submissions that gather new data are 5% less likely to be accepted than those
that did not; the average reviewer-rated reproducibility of these submissions
is also 2% lower relative to the rest. We find that only 46% of submissions
claim to open-source their code, though submissions that do have 8% higher
reproducibility score relative to those that do not, the most for any item. We
discuss what can be inferred about the state of reproducibility in NLP, and
provide a set of recommendations for future conferences, including: a) allowing
submitting code and appendices one week after the deadline, and b) measuring
dataset reproducibility by a checklist of data collection practices.
