Tags: * against 4 reviews
Point 12 +14 re the number of reviews: forcing 4 reviewers to hope for 3 completed is a bad system,
as it generates inequal treatments between papers, and create extra (useless) work for both reviewers
and action editors. ARR should try to understand why it happens so much more than for old-style big
conference reviewing and my guess is that reviewers were overwhelmed by the short review cycle. Sending
papers w/o the same nb of reviews and/or meta-reviews is likewise totally unfair.