Tags: * against reviewer training * link meta/reviews to conferences * review load proportional to submissions
"I'm rather opposed to any more ""reviewer training"" etc. It just adds to an already excessive workload.
I find it almost impossible to provide useful meta-reviews without knowing what venue a paper is being
considered for, and I don't see it as my job as an AC to scratch my head thinking about what venue a
paper might be appropriate for. Taking workshops out of the equation would already make this a lot better,
as we can treat the main conferences as equivalent to a reasonable approximation, but definitely not
the workshops. At the moment, I review/meta-review an order of magnitude more papers than I write. In
terms of my career, this is not a good deal, and I would welcome explicit mechanisms to tie the expected
review loads to the number of papers submitted. Currently, the only option I have is to opt out of the
process completely."