Tags: * improve communication (use less email) * expand desk rejects * for 4 reviews * increase load of senior reviewers * ban resubmission of bad papers * increase reviewer diversity
"1. Find a way to reduce the dependency to the mail system. Many reviewers dont read their mail, or
use another address, or the mail goes to spam. A lot of time is wasted when mails are lost. 2. Make
the best of the most valuable resource: expertise time from senior, experienced experts. This includes:
do not have a bad paper reviewed multiple times. 3. The option to have 4 reviewers, including a senior
reviewer (and ideally also a junior reviewer) is useful to show less experienced people what a good
review looks like. Mentoring / training are other options. 4. Section 12-16 gives the impression that
all reviews are equal - they are not. I would increase the load of senior authors - I have seen starting
phD students reviewing 5-6 papers, and their supervisor, only a handful. Should be the other way around.
5. SAC should have the authority to ban poor papers from resubmitting for a series of cyle (as TACL
does) Re the automatic assignment system: very often junior researchers have the same interests as their
supervisor, so they are assigned to the same papers. I would use the same rules as for COIs. "