Tags: * march delay unacceptable * poor ARR meta/review quality * fire late (meta)reviewers
"The reviewers quality should remain high. I know that at the beginning there was a qualification of
at least 3 accepted papers to ACL* conferences, but since then people could recommend reviewers without
this condition being checked. The quality of reviews and meta-reviews degraded a lot since last year,
and it shouldn't have been this way. There is also a major delay in getting responses to the last submission
rounds (March) which is unacceptable and unreasonable. Reviewers and meta-reviewers that do not submit
their reviews in time should not be used again. This whole process should be monitored more carefully
and I would expect a delay notice by email to all the authors that did not get reviews and meta-reviews
in time. "