Tags: * fundamental flaw in ARR : papers are submitted for conferences * need statistics on (increased?) load due to ARR to make any decisions * against easy opt-out
"I think the survey (and the panel) barely address main concerns with ARR: Papers are submitted for
conferences, not improvements (see submission distribution around ACL), how much is the additional effort
of ARR (from all perspectives), is this effort justified and how? Maybe ARR should be a 3-4 a year cycle
for all ACL conferences in that year. This survey is very unimaginative in possible solutions and should
probably be discarded in favor of a real discussion community discussion about ARR. 12b) + 14c) authors
should not be able to opt-out, at least in long run. If they have a large imbalance over, e.g., a year
window between submissions and reviews they should be strongly penalized, e.g. not allowed to submit."