Tags: * for 8 week cycle (overlapping) * mentor area chairs * for workshop submissions to ARR * for more informative metareviews: potential for major conference acceptance, long or short etc
"May consider overlapping review cycles of 8 weeks, where in each a different pool of reviewers is used.
In my opinion, the metareviews should be the key element to inform the authors of the final decisions
taken and their motivation, in order to avoid reviewers' blaming (for instance, if a review is particularly
strict, out of target, or even offensive, the metareview may make clear it has been downweighted). Furthermore,
they should also provide a mentoring element, regardless of the seniority of the authors, suggesting
for instance whether a paper requiring major revision has potential for a major conference, is only
suitable for a workshop, should be make long or short (it could be a pity to submit a good WIP as a
short paper, to then lower the chances of acceptance of a complete long paper), as well as suggesting
whether a submission is simply not interesting and therefore it is not recommended to waste further
time on that (often authors, of the sake of publishing as much as possibile, keep improving and pushing
their luck with boring papers). I would suggest that even workshop submission should benefit at least
from one full general review cycle, in addition to eventual specific workshop ones, that would allow
to protect the authors (and the subsequent readers, which are often less keen at looking at workshop
proceedings) to waste potentially good submission for the general conferences. "