Tags: * penalize bad reviewers * improve communication with reviewers * poor ARR meta/review quality * against 4 reviews * limit submissions per person * increase number of / load of senior reviewers
"(1) Serious delays in review submission. As an author, I found quite a few reviewers can't submit their
reviews in time and usually delay one or even two weeks. There must be some kind of penalties for delay.
(2) As a reviewer, no one reminded me that I had assigned papers until the submission deadline, which
is one of the main reasons for the delay! Reviewers have to log in to ARR and frequently check, which
is unreasonable! (3) Due to the issues above, the quality of reviews has not been improved! Quite a
few reviewers in ARR still give quite simple reviews like a few sentences. (4) With the increasing number
of submissions, many junior graduate students are involved in the reviewing process, further hurting
review quality. Please note that many senior researchers or professors will not review papers themselves!
Therefore, requiring more reviewers for each paper will only involve more inexperienced reviewers. (5)
The best way to promote review quality is to involve more experienced reviewers and reduce the number
of submissions! This can be achieved by strictly limiting the number of papers each person can be listed
as the author, which can help force each research group or researcher/professor to avoid submitting
their low-quality or incomplete papers! That is, we can require researcher groups to conduct some kind
of 'summary reject' themselves."