|1||Jun 10, 2010 9:58 PM||Author feedback should be by-request-only from either area chair or reviewers.|
|2||Jun 10, 2010 10:45 PM||1) Ask for formal feedback after phase I, mostly to influence reviewer selection
2) Allow direct correspondence between area chairs and authors throughout process.|
|3||Jun 10, 2010 10:48 PM||Not have two phases, and ask for reviewing and feedback in one shot.|
|4||Jun 10, 2010 10:52 PM||I've never understood why we need to have a barrier between reviewing and author feedback. If you allow authors to respond as soon as a review is in, much of the time wastage in a barrier will disappear.|
|5||Jun 11, 2010 3:06 AM||As far as I've ever seen in any conference as an area chair/senior PC member, reviewer, or author, the author feedback has NEVER changed anybody's mind about a paper. I feel it's a waste of everybody's time that just creates more negative feelings in the authors' minds when they think they made a case for acceptance and it didn't turn out in their favor (and as I said, I have never seen a paper go from a likely reject to an accept based on author feedback). I'm sure it happens on occasion, but not often enough to make it worth the cost in terms of everybody's time and a much shortened review cycle.
So I'm actually agreeing with Option 4, "Do not ask for author feedback at all."|
|6||Jun 14, 2010 10:08 AM||I do not think there should be a second phase of author feedback, as this would make the system even harder to manage. I do think the Phase II reviewer should have access to the Phase I author feedback, otherwise the advantages of having two phases are marginal.|