Tags: * make reviewer stats available
"I think one the underlying problems that some of these policies are trying fix is the fact that reviewing
is subjective. Different reviewers have different standards for assessing papers. I think some information
about the profile of the reviewers should be make public while keeping anonymity such as average, desv.
standard, acceptance rate as recorded on the platform. This will provide a way of contextualizing the
review. A 1.6 given by a historically stricter reviewer might mean the same than a 2.5 given by a more
generous guy. This will provide senior reviewers or PC or AC a clearer perspective of where opinions
are coming from. From the author side, it would be okay to know that the people making the decision
is aware of this. Many papers make it because of their luckiness of getting more opened reviewers. Another
thing that would make the reviewing process more transparent is the same thing you have in this form:
knowing at what stage of the carrer the reviewer is. Many times Ph. D. candidates assess works through
the eyes of their PhD work and they do not have the background and intuition of a more senior rsearcher.
There is a lot to do in this direction that has not been tackled. I am opened to talk about this if
necessary although in the NLP community there are people much smarter than me."