| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 7:12 PM | See phase 1 vs phase 2 comment earlier. |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 8:03 PM | With many phases it's important to have regular mailings clearly (repeating) what the status is, what the deadlines are, and what the flexibility is (as some reviewers may be unavailable a few days of the process). |
| 3 | Jun 10, 2010 9:12 PM | I wasn't automatically informed when other reviewers submitted comments. |
| 4 | Jun 10, 2010 11:32 PM | I was a bit confused when the date of discussion phase reached but no discussion started. I was wondering if I should start the discussion or shall I wait for the area chair. |
| 5 | Jun 10, 2010 11:54 PM | I believe authors should be encouraged to provide self-contained papers. Including supplementary material has the opposite effect and few people read it if it is more than 1-2 pages. Maybe the page limit could be increased (in a flexible non-mandatory way), in order to get a more objective picture of the papers. It has become the norm to make claims without proving them (due to size constraints) which turn out to be false after closer inspection or impossible to verify in time. Also the two-column layout is inappropriate for presenting mathematical statements. |
| 6 | Jun 11, 2010 3:24 AM | Emphasize that one of the roles of phase I reviewers
is to tell the area chair who are the most suited ptentiial
referees for phase II |
| 7 | Jun 11, 2010 6:30 AM | I was an additional reviewer and saw just one paper. |