| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 8:26 PM | Only have one phase, with feedback afterwards. |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 8:36 PM | Author feedback should be restricted to very short (e.g. maybe 200 characters) so that authors can only address actual errors in the reviews. |
| 3 | Jun 10, 2010 9:58 PM | Author feedback should be by-request-only from either area chair or reviewers. |
| 4 | 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. |
| 5 | Jun 11, 2010 8:39 AM | Author feedback: The main role of this is not to reach reviewers,
I've honestly never seen this happen. I don't complain about good
reviews, and bad reviewers by def. don't even read the response.
The importance is that the area chair sees the response. |
| 6 | Jun 11, 2010 1:39 PM | After Phase 1, as in this year. However, if an author claims a basic misunderstading by a reviewer, author's might be asked who would be appropriate to review their paper. This is commonplace in the biological sciences, where specialization precludes the assumption that people have broad competence over huge fields. |
| 7 | Jun 14, 2010 7:37 PM | The first option, however, to have a possibility to communicate with authors in a more flexible way, could be in some situations quite interesting. |
| 8 | Jun 16, 2010 2:52 AM | I prefer single phase; the two phase process is too complicated, and just adds more randomness to an already random process.
In a transition back to a single phase process, the first year or two should include author feedback, then it should go back to no author feedback. |
| 9 | Jun 16, 2010 7:43 AM | If you are going to have author feedback it would be good if reviewers were forced to respond to it (and the authors could read this reponse). This at least makes one feel it has been read. |