| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 7:05 PM | No opinion. All past year's ICML reviews have been fine with me. |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 7:06 PM | In general the first two options are fine but there is one very big caveat: there should be the ability for the authors to write in their own keywords. A certain (newish) topic did not have a keyword, and so papers on it keep getting reviewer mismatch. |
| 3 | Jun 10, 2010 8:39 PM | there is no best one. it dependes on the quality of reviews. |
| 4 | Jun 11, 2010 4:42 AM | This year's process in not transparent enough to compare to my previous experiences. |
| 5 | Jun 11, 2010 8:55 AM | One negative point of the publicity of area chairs is that I encountered a paper as a reviewer at ECML which was an exact copy of a rejected ICML paper. I reposted the given reviews as my review and probably gave away my identity that way. (I might have lost some friends ... :-)) |
| 6 | Jun 12, 2010 10:57 AM | Like this year, but without making the assigment of area chairs to key words public. |