« 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 7:07 PMit's pathetic you can't write "<" or ">"
2Jun 10, 2010 7:11 PMI really dislike the default CMT behavior of not being able to see other reviews of a paper until after author feedback. One of the nice elements of CyberChair is getting to see other reviewer comments immediately after submitting the review, while the paper is still fresh on my mind.
3Jun 10, 2010 7:14 PMReviewer assignment should be easier - needs to be easier to get list of reviewers. At the moment involves many clicks. The use of the term "not willing" should be removed. As an area chair this implied I ought not assign a paper to someone I knew to be a good fit, because they had said they were "not willing" to review it. There must be a better term that would make such an assignment less awkward.
4Jun 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.
5Jun 10, 2010 7:16 PM1) it is incredibly slow and totally no fun just because of this 2) the export format is some clumsy xml so no simple offline reviewing is possible 3) there is no good overview for an area chair / reviewer and it is difficult to rank papers
6Jun 10, 2010 7:31 PMmerging multiple emails is a pain, if you get entered into the system multiple times as a reviewer, author on different papers, etc. -- there should be a way of merging identities
7Jun 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.
8Jun 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!
9Jun 10, 2010 9:01 PMProvide the reviewers feedback on which papers have finally been accepted/rejected
10Jun 10, 2010 9:09 PMDo not automatically open any link in a new window.
11Jun 10, 2010 10:15 PMThe settings on CMT appear to be confusing to many conference managers, as often unexpected things happen (lack of confirmation emails for submission, deadlines which "lock out" reviews, etc.) I can't remember if anything happened for ICML; this is a general observation.
12Jun 10, 2010 11:40 PMSometimes the display of the tables containing the reviews is weird. This could be improved a bit.
13Jun 10, 2010 11:58 PMThere is a delay any time you contact the Microsoft server.
14Jun 11, 2010 3:59 AMIt is very slow, if there is any way to improve the interface's response time that would be great.
15Jun 11, 2010 7:47 AMFor the reviewer: quick summary of the review conflicts Availability of the program committee member list.
16Jun 11, 2010 7:51 AMCMT has very long response times.
17Jun 11, 2010 8:03 AMI remember having a problem initially getting into the system but I do not remember the details
18Jun 11, 2010 8:49 AMOne simple thing: - Get all my assignments out in TEXT FORMAT - Allow to import all my decisions in TEXT FORMAT - If you insist on this clicking orgy: At LEAST allow me to sort entries according to any field. And show me ALL of them Remember: Your system is real slow, at least here in Europe - And please don't tell me "my request is taken seriously" if it just goes to the nul device I am not using MS products, because they waste everybodys time. Certainly I am not using Excel.
19Jun 11, 2010 10:11 AMFor reviewers, navigating from the main page to reviews could be more straightforward.
20Jun 11, 2010 11:40 AMThe system should handle annotated PDF files
21Jun 12, 2010 6:08 PMBetter handling of refresh after I choose to read paper abstrart during bidding. Faster viewing of my choices during bidding (e.g. create a color-coded scroll bar that shows my selections).
22Jun 12, 2010 11:03 PMEasier registration. Less security.
23Jun 13, 2010 2:00 PMthe interface is a bit confusing, too many options, too complicated. options which are not available should disappear directly. At some point in the reviewing process some links were inactivated but the images remained in place, that's annoying. if we dont have access to it, just remove the image/link completely.
24Jun 14, 2010 3:22 PMSometimes I would like to see all papers, but it seems that this is only possible f you do not specify any filter
25Jun 14, 2010 7:41 PMa better control panel
26Jun 17, 2010 7:14 PMcountdown to deadline(s)