| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 7:15 PM | All 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. |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 7:52 PM | Anything 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. |
| 3 | Jun 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! |
| 4 | Jun 10, 2010 8:49 PM | no |
| 5 | Jun 10, 2010 9:04 PM | The bidding systems is a bit odd. I can't always figure out what is going on. |
| 6 | Jun 10, 2010 9:09 PM | Do not automatically open any link in a new window. |
| 7 | Jun 10, 2010 11:11 PM | I 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. |
| 8 | Jun 11, 2010 2:35 AM | inviting 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. |
| 9 | Jun 11, 2010 3:09 AM | nil |
| 10 | Jun 11, 2010 11:40 AM | The system should handle annotated PDF files |
| 11 | Jun 11, 2010 1:11 PM | Direct 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? |
| 12 | Jun 11, 2010 1:37 PM | good enough |
| 13 | Jun 11, 2010 1:47 PM | no |
| 14 | Jun 11, 2010 1:52 PM | sorry no |
| 15 | Jun 11, 2010 1:58 PM | i) 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. |
| 16 | Jun 11, 2010 4:28 PM | Stop designing it. it's a terrible piece of software. HotCRP is significantly better |
| 17 | Jun 11, 2010 5:08 PM | Was not super user-friendly compared to competing systems (maybe this is due to familiarity though) |
| 18 | Jun 12, 2010 4:02 AM | The pull-down menus fail in some browsers.
Some options are unclear. |
| 19 | Jun 12, 2010 1:48 PM | Seems very bulky to load pages. Just not based on simple HTML. |
| 20 | Jun 16, 2010 9:55 PM | Reviews 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! |