Comment 091

next comment

Tags: * for 8 week cycle (overlapping) * mentor area chairs * for workshop submissions to ARR * for more informative metareviews: potential for major conference acceptance, long or short etc

"May consider overlapping review cycles of 8 weeks, where in each a different pool of reviewers is used. 
In my opinion, the metareviews should be the key element to inform the authors of the final decisions 
taken and their motivation, in order to avoid reviewers' blaming (for instance, if a review is particularly 
strict, out of target, or even offensive, the metareview may make clear it has been downweighted). Furthermore, 
they should also provide a mentoring element, regardless of the seniority of the authors, suggesting 
for instance whether a paper requiring major revision has potential for a major conference, is only 
suitable for a workshop, should be make long or short (it could be a pity to submit a good WIP as a 
short paper, to then lower the chances of acceptance of a complete long paper), as well as suggesting 
whether a submission is simply not interesting and therefore it is not recommended to waste further 
time on that (often authors, of the sake of publishing as much as possibile, keep improving and pushing 
their luck with boring papers). I would suggest that even workshop submission should benefit at least 
from one full general review cycle, in addition to eventual specific workshop ones, that would allow 
to protect the authors (and the subsequent readers, which are often less keen at looking at workshop 
proceedings) to waste potentially good submission for the general conferences. "