| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 7:07 PM | it's pathetic you can't write "<" or ">" |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 7:11 PM | I 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. |
| 3 | Jun 10, 2010 7:14 PM | Reviewer 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. |
| 4 | 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. |
| 5 | Jun 10, 2010 7:16 PM | 1) 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 |
| 6 | Jun 10, 2010 7:31 PM | merging 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 |
| 7 | 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. |
| 8 | 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! |
| 9 | Jun 10, 2010 9:01 PM | Provide the reviewers feedback on which papers have finally been accepted/rejected |
| 10 | Jun 10, 2010 9:09 PM | Do not automatically open any link in a new window. |
| 11 | Jun 10, 2010 10:15 PM | The 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. |
| 12 | Jun 10, 2010 11:40 PM | Sometimes the display of the tables containing the reviews is weird. This could be improved a bit. |
| 13 | Jun 10, 2010 11:58 PM | There is a delay any time you contact the Microsoft server. |
| 14 | Jun 11, 2010 3:59 AM | It is very slow, if there is any way to improve the interface's response time that would be great. |
| 15 | Jun 11, 2010 7:47 AM | For the reviewer: quick summary of the review conflicts
Availability of the program committee member list. |
| 16 | Jun 11, 2010 7:51 AM | CMT has very long response times. |
| 17 | Jun 11, 2010 8:03 AM | I remember having a problem initially getting into the system but I do not remember the details |
| 18 | Jun 11, 2010 8:49 AM | One 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. |
| 19 | Jun 11, 2010 10:11 AM | For reviewers, navigating from the main page to reviews could be more straightforward. |
| 20 | Jun 11, 2010 11:40 AM | The system should handle annotated PDF files |
| 21 | Jun 12, 2010 6:08 PM | Better 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). |
| 22 | Jun 12, 2010 11:03 PM | Easier registration. Less security. |
| 23 | Jun 13, 2010 2:00 PM | the 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. |
| 24 | Jun 14, 2010 3:22 PM | Sometimes I would like to see all papers, but it seems that this is only possible f you do not specify any filter |
| 25 | Jun 14, 2010 7:41 PM | a better control panel |
| 26 | Jun 17, 2010 7:14 PM | countdown to deadline(s) |