Tags: * for 8 week cycle or longer * improve communication with reviewers * make clear how to reach ARR (for authors, reviewers etc)
"1. The reviewing period is too short. We are not going to improve the quality of reviews by shortening
the reviewing period. 8 weeks is only workable is more than 50% of that is reviewing time. Let's do
the math to see is that is viable, including the overhead (bidding, meta-review, etc.) 2. For reviewers,
the current system is a mess. We never know how many papers we will get, when and for what deadline.
Consistency definitely beats good intentions. 3. Communication with whoever runs ARR is opaque. All
the emails we get from ARR have a ""no-reply"" return address and there is no contact info in the email."