Tags: * future of reviewing document should have defined the roles of (senior) area chair / action editor * pay reviewers
"It would have been nice to have the functions of the different roles written explicitly in the future
of reviewing document. I'm sure it's clear for some people, but for those less senior in the field who
have only been reviewers it's often unclear what the difference is between things like ""area char""
vs. ""senior area chair"", and ""action editor"" vs. ""senior action editor"". Also, I'm wondering how
sustainable it is to rely on the community to volunteer their time to reviewing for free. I'm guessing
this has been addressed somewhere in the past, the sense I get is that the response to this would be
""it's just part of your job, if you want to publish and grow in the field you have to do this for the
conferences."" I understand the desire to not have a profit motive, but people have been pushing for
years for annotators to be paid more fairly. Reviewing a technical conference paper feels more time
consuming than data annotation if done properly, so it seems unreasonable to not at least think about
compensation."