« Back to Summary
When do you think should authors be asked to provide their feedback?
#Response DateI have the following alternative proposal:
1Jun 10, 2010 7:48 PMI see no reason that authors cannot particpate in an interactive discussion with the reviewers while preserving two-way anonymity. Of course the discussion period should be limited. Right now authors - who put in the maximum effort on the paper and have most to lose - have the least say on the matter. Their response is read or not read and acted upon or not. In most cases, the reviewers are not willing to change their stance. If at all, they only change negatively and they have nothing to lose. The role of the reviewer should not be one-sided - find excuses to reject - but should also be to strongly support papers that they think should be accepted. This is rarely practiced as there are always some weaknesses, and it is harder to defend a paper than to support it. Allowing authors to participate in the discussion would even out the playing field a little more, although the reviewers would still have the final say. Area chair cannot do this job, since he would not have read the paper and has responsibility for many papers. -Prasad Tadepalli
2Jun 10, 2010 8:27 PMI see no reason that authors cannot particpate in an interactive discussion with the reviewers while preserving two-way anonymity. Of course the discussion period should be limited. Right now authors - who put in the maximum effort on the paper and have most to lose - have the least say on the matter. Their response is read or not read and acted upon or not. In most cases, the reviewers are not willing to change their stance. If at all, they only change negatively and they have nothing to lose. The role of the reviewer should not be one-sided - find excuses to reject - but should also be to strongly support papers that they think should be accepted. This is rarely practiced as there are always some weaknesses, and it is harder to defend a paper than to support it. Allowing authors to participate in the discussion would even out the playing field a little more, although the reviewers would still have the final say. Area chair cannot do this job, since he would not have read the paper and has responsibility for many papers.
3Jun 10, 2010 10:45 PM1) Ask for formal feedback after phase I, mostly to influence reviewer selection 2) Allow direct correspondence between area chairs and authors throughout process.
4Jun 10, 2010 10:48 PMNot have two phases, and ask for reviewing and feedback in one shot.
5Jun 10, 2010 10:52 PMI'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.
6Jun 11, 2010 1:38 AMDo not ask for author feedback at all. But if you do, I feel it *must* be after Phase II. My impression was that the final review was the one that "decided" and it is silly to not be able to respond to that review, if it is indeed the one that matters.
7Jun 11, 2010 3:06 AMAs 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."
8Jun 11, 2010 1:42 PMAllow the authors to offer more substantive feedback including possible revisions to the manuscript. The statement of acceptable author feedback is very limiting. Indeed, we were criticized in our phase 2 reviews for not responding to the reviews sufficiently, but our view was that such responses were not "allowed"/"encouraged". To make it easier to find where authors made changes, those authors who choose to revise must provide output from a tool such as latexdiff to highlight all changes.
9Jun 12, 2010 1:44 PMI think author feedback has an extremely small chance of being read and acted upon. PC members (the large majority) become defensive when authors rebut and therefore I think it is quite a useless phase. Comment based on personal and colleagues experience.
10Jun 13, 2010 11:51 AMI like the experiment has been done in ACL this year: authors of accepted papers got an extra page in the final version of the paper in order to answer to all reviewers' questions and comments.
11Jun 13, 2010 12:07 PMif feedback is given, then after phase I. But I think it only makes sense if it really changes something, i.e., there is enough space to explain and reviewers are not burdened with so much reviewing that in phase II they are exhausted and want to tend back to their own work, and hence do not change anything in the review. For rebuttals to work, there needs to be an atmosphere where reviewers are willing to accept that they got something wrong and that it is okay to admit that and change the review. On the other hand, seeing the entire reviewing process as a game of who sells better and who can be more convincing is not the ideal situation either, papers should be accepted by quality and not selling capabilities. Of course, new results should not be submitted by the authors. But unfortunately I do not know a solution for that. As it is currently, it seems like the feedback never changes much :-(
12Jun 14, 2010 2:09 PMOnly ask for author feedback in cases where it could change the reviewer's decision (i.e., not for all papers). Otherwise don't waste everyone's time.
13Jun 16, 2010 7:43 AMIf 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.
14Jun 25, 2010 6:48 AMIn my experience both as a reviewer and an author, I rarely found it to be the case that reviewers were willing to change their rating based on author feedback . More often than not, it appeared that the reviewers did not read the author feedback (or for that matter, the reviews other than their own).
15Jun 25, 2010 8:32 AMAs I think there should only be a reviewing phase, I think that the feedback should be after this phase.