tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8747085902902510837.post8881687322696560186..comments2020-01-26T12:50:22.259+01:00Comments on Andreas Zeller's Old Blog: Faster, better, stronger: The case for one-phase reviewsAndreas Zellerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02016277079276068582noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8747085902902510837.post-86486366529653457162013-09-16T09:27:42.722+02:002013-09-16T09:27:42.722+02:00Of course. As a PC chair, one should always striv...Of course. As a PC chair, one should always strive to size the PC such that the load is bearable for all. If the review times were shorter, one would factor this in, and limit not only the absolute load, but also the number of reviews per week. Fortunately, ASE 2013 with a 300% increase in submissions is the exception.Andreas Zellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02016277079276068582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8747085902902510837.post-9845474062151393122013-09-12T11:03:38.396+02:002013-09-12T11:03:38.396+02:00I think, the argument for one-phase review is very...I think, the argument for one-phase review is very valid. <br /><br />I am only wondering regarding the >20 papers review approach. In my opinion and experience this actually invites running the risk of inadequate reviews. (Even if distributed out over time, with many things going on - e.g., other conferences - this is a extremely high load.)<br />To me, this means, that the PC is too smal.. <br />Of course, people often solve it in such cases by sub-distributing the reviews, but I think, this is not the right way. <br />Klaus Schmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14177282320672706424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8747085902902510837.post-6229449201227121142013-09-11T15:02:19.292+02:002013-09-11T15:02:19.292+02:00Andreas, very interesting post. I agree with the p...Andreas, very interesting post. I agree with the points about time (your math is of course accurate). <br /><br />I would like to add a small note on the quality of reviews (you are talking of getting better reviews), irrespective of the reviewing model. The key issue, IMHO, is that the task of reviewing isn't typically taken into account by employers as part of the daily duties of a researcher.<br /><br />I've often heard sentences such as "I didn't do much progress this week, I had to do reviewing for conference/journal XYZ". It seems that we (as researchers) apologize for "wasting" our time doing reviews. <br /><br />Changing this attitude is worth more than inventing new reviewing models... I admit this may be the utopia of a 'young' researcherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com