Tags: * improve communication with reviewers * against year-round reviewing * link all versions in openreview * publish ARR 'decisions' on papers * double submissions to softconf / ARR confusing
"I like the idea of ARR but I find the current implementation confusing and disruptive. I have no idea
when I've signed up to be a reviewer and even then I have no idea when the review is due. The requests
for review can be very frequent, making scheduling my time very difficult. In the past, I could say,
ok, papers are due on the 14th so I need to make sure I have time to do reviews over the next four weeksSEMICOLON
now it's just some reviewing all the time. And somehow I'm still getting requests for April and it's
June. I can't tell when resubmitted papers have been modified or not or if they're being resubmitted
for a different track or conference. Furthermore, because we're using ARR and Softconf, I've had duplicate
papers in both systems and I don't know how to handle that. Are the authors just trying their luck and
submitting everywhere? What was the decision the first time I reviewed the paper? That's another thing,
I have no idea what final decision was made on papers in ARR. Have they been accepted, and if so, to
what? Thanks so much for your time."