« Back to Summary
Do you have any suggestions for improving CMT that we should pass on to its developers?
#Response DateResponse Text
1Jun 10, 2010 7:15 PMAll I want is: (a) Before having reviewed---a simple way to get the pdfs; then (b) a simple way to then enter the reviews, (c) After having reviewed / in discussion phase: a link from the login page to a summary page for each paper, which contains a link to the pdf + all reviewers' ratings+comments + space to add comments. The OLD systems were like that. It was WAY more convenient. I forget how it worked in CMT, but I recall it was just painful and discouraged me very strongly from reading other reviews, and from participating in discussion.
2Jun 10, 2010 7:52 PMAnything you can do to broaden the scope of the conference will be great. Diversifying the reviewers and area chairs as much as possible could accomplish this.
3Jun 10, 2010 8:42 PM(i) CMT is way tooo slow. (ii) It does not give submission notification, I could list Bill-Gates as my co-author and he would NEVER know. I could commit plagiarism crimes with another person as co-author and that person would never learn about it when he gets fired. That is f***d up!
4Jun 10, 2010 8:49 PMno
5Jun 10, 2010 9:04 PMThe bidding systems is a bit odd. I can't always figure out what is going on.
6Jun 10, 2010 9:09 PMDo not automatically open any link in a new window.
7Jun 10, 2010 11:11 PMI found the interface awkward in many places, because (a) there was some next step to do and it was buried or (b) because the information needed wasn't presented coherently.
8Jun 11, 2010 2:35 AMinviting reviewers was difficult, just like assigning reviewers to papers. in general, the system was quite slow, in some case loading long lists of names that could be avoided. (I forgot most of the issues, and the specifics, but there were definitely issues). Also, I am using Firefox and some functionality did not work on it.
9Jun 11, 2010 3:09 AMnil
10Jun 11, 2010 11:40 AMThe system should handle annotated PDF files
11Jun 11, 2010 1:11 PMDirect access to papers and their reviews, better reviewer assignment procedure, "save" isn't always clear: to which entry does it refer? Has the decision been saved or not?
12Jun 11, 2010 1:37 PMgood enough
13Jun 11, 2010 1:47 PMno
14Jun 11, 2010 1:52 PMsorry no
15Jun 11, 2010 1:58 PMi) The process of updating the submission can be unclear. Once it seemed that a new paper was being submitted, and it asked about metadata again. ii) It would be useful if the server provided a md5 (or other) checksum of the submitted paper; this saves the effort and load on the server from downloading to check if submission went ok.
16Jun 11, 2010 4:28 PMStop designing it. it's a terrible piece of software. HotCRP is significantly better
17Jun 11, 2010 5:08 PMWas not super user-friendly compared to competing systems (maybe this is due to familiarity though)
18Jun 12, 2010 4:02 AMThe pull-down menus fail in some browsers. Some options are unclear.
19Jun 12, 2010 1:48 PMSeems very bulky to load pages. Just not based on simple HTML.
20Jun 16, 2010 9:55 PMReviews for paper should be always availible. It happen to me that I wanted to go over the reviews but they were not availible in the system!