Tags: * improve matching * for tracks * against current set of tracks used at conferences * ensure that COIs are uptodate
"The current system for matching reviewers to papers is really bad. As someone who serves as a reviewer,
but hasn't published very much, I seem to get matched to completely random things. There is no way to
specify my reviewing expertise except via the papers I've authored, so I can't tell the system that
I've been reading a lot about [topic X] and could easily review papers on that subject. I strongly,
strongly support tracks, but we need a much better set of tracks than conferences have used in the previous
years. It feels like the tracks, as they currently exist, are not a natural clustering of papers. A
new set of tracks should be designed, either by experts, or perhaps by a clustering algorithm which
then gets reviewed by experts. Reviewers should be prompted every so often to update conflicts of interestSEMICOLON
I am not sure, as a reviewer, how to add a new conflict of interest that says, for instance, that I've
been closely collaborating with a researcher at another university, but we haven't published together
yet (I didn't see an option to add this conflict of interest when I looked)."