Tags: * for FTE * for double blind * blind reviewers to each other * review load proportional to submissions * reviewer performance: rate, track, act upon
"- I believe that hiring someone as a full-time employee is something that should have been done a while
ago. - Reviews should be double-blind, in addition, reviewers should not be allowed to see the reviews
of other reviewers. If they see the other reviews, then they cannot revise their own. - Authors who
submit N papers must review at least N/2 papers within the next 4 cycles otherwise they should not be
permitted to submit other papers to ARR. Authors have to understand that reviewing is their obligation.
- Authors should be able to file complaints about a reviewer stating specifically why the review was
""bad"". Note that the editor must corroborate that this is indeed a ""bad"" review and not simply a
negative one. - ""Bad"" reviewers should be flagged and ""fined"". E.g. if a reviewer gets more than
5 complaints, then they should be banned from submitting to the next cycle any paper where they are
authors/co-authors. - ""Bad"" reviews should count as no reviews. "