Tags: * against ARR * ARR too complex * for discussion, author-reviewer * for paper updates during review process * ARR should sign up reviewers for a specific conference * better AC/SAC-PC interaction * against junior reviewers * pay reviewers
"I am against the rolling review system, as it creates an overload of complexity, whereas there are
other things in the system that could be changed more easily. In my opinion important things to (re)-introduce:
(i) author-reviewer interaction and update of papers on open review as with some of the ML conferences,
which has been completely lost with this new system, (ii) reviewing for a specific conference (many
reviewers did not know that they were signed up to review, leading to many later or non-existent reviewers,
(iii) better interaction between action editors and chairs - maybe even a chat where we can ask each
other questions, notably about deadlines and who has been contacted when. In terms of making authors
review, we should not be encouraging too junior researchers to review, but incentivise good reviewing
by those who are qualified (money off conferences for instance?)"