Tags: * create reviewer certification program * decrease arbitrariness / increase diversity of AC/SAC selection * any decision on ARR should be democratic
"1. The biggest problem with current reviewing is the quality of reviewers. It is ironical that systems
in various places (academia/industry) have proper training programs (with some sort of certification)
for teaching/job, however, for reviewing we take it for granted that anyone who has been selected reviewing
will do good reviewing. A proper reviewing certification program should be created, where new reviewers
(especially grad students) are required to do a training and qualify it based on a test/certification.
The training program can easily be developed if the community comes together and acts. Initially there
will be considerable effort in designing the training program but in the long run it will benefit the
whole community especially given that the reviewing load is increasing almost exponentially. 2. The
whole process of selecting Action Editors and Senior Action Editors should be made more democratic rather
than on choice of select few people. For example, there should be a pool of (Senior) Action Editors
who are selected based on certain well defined criteria (for example, by filling a form) and all people
in this pool should get opportunity to be AE/SAE based on some scheme, for example, round-robin, etc.
If you look the AE and SAE distribution, it lacks diversity and is concentrated to select few. 3. Also
any decision that is made for ARR should be done in a democratic way rather than a small group of people
deciding for the whole community, which apparently is large now. "