« Back to Summary
Throughout the reviewing process, was it always clear to you what needed to be done?
#Response DateComments:
1Jun 10, 2010 8:04 PMWell, it wasn't easy when we had to look for COIs without knowing who the authors were...
2Jun 10, 2010 8:29 PMThe "buddy phase" was new to me
3Jun 11, 2010 3:08 AMKeyword assignment and reviewer recruitment was especially problematic. I dislike the ICML model of having a "pool" of reviewers per area chair. It creates too much competition for reviewers, and doesn't permit reviewers to be most effectively matched with papers. The AAAI model, in which authors and senior PC members ("area chairs") are independently matched with papers, seems to me to work much better. There's no reason for each area chair to "own" their reviewers at any stage of the process. It's too fine-grained and leads to a suboptimal result. (You're optimization people; you should understand the flaw in overly partitioning an interdependent optimization problem!)
4Jun 11, 2010 1:07 PMThe system use is far from being self explicatory, but with the kind help of the chair persons, it all went smoothly.
5Jun 14, 2010 10:10 AMThe main thing that wasn't clear to me initially is what information Phase II reviewers would have access to. More generally, it would be extremely helpful for an AC to emulate a reviewer so the AC can see what the reviewer sees.