« Back to Summary
Throughout the reviewing process, was it always clear to you what needed to be done?
#Response DateComments:
1Jun 10, 2010 7:12 PMSee phase 1 vs phase 2 comment earlier.
2Jun 10, 2010 8:03 PMWith 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).
3Jun 10, 2010 9:12 PMI wasn't automatically informed when other reviewers submitted comments.
4Jun 10, 2010 11:32 PMI 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.
5Jun 10, 2010 11:54 PMI 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.
6Jun 11, 2010 3:24 AMEmphasize 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
7Jun 11, 2010 6:30 AMI was an additional reviewer and saw just one paper.