International Association
for Cryptologic Research

Actually, what I was proposing is largely orthogonal to current "two-stage" review systems. My point was to have a system where authors and fellow PC members review the reviewers. Furthermore, this review would cause bad reviewers to lose the right to publish their own work at future top conferences. This would create (I think) a powerful incentive for reviewers to spend the time to craft better reviews -- at the very least, to understand better technically what is going on in a paper that they are supposed to be reviewing. -- Finally, coming back to the points raised in this thread about multi-stage reviews: At TCC 2013 this year, we tried out a system which allowed for *freeform* interaction between PC members and authors (i.e. a "poly-stage" review process). In my opinion as the PC chair with a global view of what happened, this interaction was extremely helpful, especially with papers that were "on the edge", or were misunderstood during the review process. --Amit From: 2013-29-06 06:34:34 (UTC)