| 1 | Jun 10, 2010 7:07 PM | Wasn't in previous ICMLs |
| 2 | Jun 10, 2010 7:21 PM | Not having a response to the final reviews was a terrible choice, as our final reviewer did not know what they were talking about. |
| 3 | Jun 10, 2010 8:13 PM | For this question as well as for the previous one, I have no idea, because I have no way to compare, I only saw the review I made (I was reviewer, not author) |
| 4 | Jun 10, 2010 8:36 PM | I don't have enough experience to answer this with much confidence. |
| 5 | Jun 10, 2010 9:06 PM | Quality of phase 1 reviews was embarrassingly low. |
| 6 | Jun 10, 2010 10:01 PM | In the papers I reviewed there was impressive agreement among reviewers. |
| 7 | Jun 10, 2010 11:17 PM | I am not certain about my claim. I do not remember previous reviews accurate enough for any meaningful comparison. |
| 8 | Jun 11, 2010 8:37 AM | About double blind: At some point, somebody has to keep track
of people submitting the same thing several times.
My 1st round reviews were simply awful (for my single author paper), I was seriously shocked. I wrote a harsh reply, and was
then positively surprised about the good handling of the area
chair (good 2nd round review; of course, the 1st round reviewers
didn't give a damn: the main function of the reply is to get the
area chair thinking!).
I as reviewer was very thorough, which got me branded as
somebody with "vested interests". I'll not do it next year for ICML.
IMHO: With such poor reviewers today, it is just more work for
area chairs. Hire more of them, keep track of who's doing good
area chair work, pass it between conferences. There is no simple
way around this, look at other serious disciplines, they do the
same.
And make sure that both authors and reviewers understand that
area chairs know who they are. |
| 9 | Jun 11, 2010 1:26 PM | Since I have not participated in past ICMLs as author *or* reviewer, I cannot comment on this. |
| 10 | Jun 12, 2010 11:01 PM | Don't know. |
| 11 | Jun 17, 2010 7:07 PM | quality assurance have to be improved, i.e., reviewer should recheck proofs and related work. to ensure this, reviewers could be divided into two groups specialized these issues (e.g. phd students and professors, respectively). furthermore, reviewers are mentioned in the proceedings related to reviewed papers (only accepted). |
| 12 | Jun 20, 2010 11:33 AM | I don't know about previous ICMLs |
| 13 | Jun 25, 2010 6:44 AM | There was rather high variability in the quality and depth of the reviews, and in my experience, more than the usual share of low quality, superficial reviews. |