Tags: * for ARR * change "commitment" into "consideration-for", i.e., revision and reviewing in parallel to commitment * against review load proportional to submissions
"There should have been a comment section after each question. ARR is still in its infancy and I support
the development and improvement of it, although it is a complete mess at the moment. In 10, I oppose
the commitment deadline because the system needs more flexibility, and ""committing"" a paper seems
to lock it to be assessed for this specific venue. But *while* it is being assessed for a specific conference/workshop,
it should be possible to both a) submit a revised version of the paper for a new round of reviews, and
b) submit the paper (revised or not) and request new reviewers/ACs. Otherwise, too much time is wasted
waiting for the near-random accept/reject (when a paper's score is around 3.5) while it could have been
on its way to being considered for the next venue. It would therefore be better with a ""Consider for""
button than a ""Commitment"" button. In 12, I oppose that someone who submits more papers has to sign
up for more reviews, simply because it seems like a misguided (non-)fix to the problem. The problem
is not the lack of amount of reviewers, it is the lack of qualified reviewers for a large range of topics
and types of papers. Someone who has the expertise that is relevant to more papers should review more
papers. And it should be easier for ACs/AEs to identify the expertise of individuals who do not have
many submissions and therefore most often are not asked to review (e.g. PhD students). If tracks are
broad, it could perhaps be possible to say that an author should review papers for each track they have
submitted papers to themselves. "