Tags: * for openreview * against revise-and-resubmit * against ARR * review load proportional to submissions * against findings
"The ""revise-and-resubmit"" policy seems to have been designed by people that have heard about journals,
think they are a good thing, but never published one. It does not work this way for conference papers.
We all know what a 3 means in a review. In theory a ""3"" paper that takes into account the changes
should be likely accepted at the next conference according to the ""revise-and-resubmit"" policy, but
this simply does not work that way, and usually what happens is that such paper ends published in a
more modest conference of workshop. It does not make sense that big-names authors that submit 15 or
20 papers just review a few of other authors' papers. The responsibility of reviewing is not proportional,
and the big groups take all the advantage. This is elitism. If you do not review papers in the same
proportion that you submit them, you should simply not submit that many. I'm 100% sure no actions will
be taken in this respect. Findings is not inclusive for many countries where that kind of publications
do not count for CV. People in charge ignore it because they are not affected by this issue. Findings
was not voted on when established. This is not just not helping these authors (from different countries),
but just the opposite, pushing them out from *ACL conferences. My recommendation would be to go back
to the softconf reviewing approach, but using the openreview infrastructure instead."