Context: I was discussing with some people. A handful mentioned sad things about the ongoing peer-review process for CVPR’21.
Main issue: Lack of transparency. Discussion between reviewers, ACs, and PCs are hidden. Who holds them accountable for their job?
Most (all?) conferences prefer using CMT3.
AFAIK, only ECCV’20 used open-review, but without transparency. By that, I mean that the discussion was confidential.
What can we do?
First, let’s discuss here.
Shall we track the quantifiable nuisance of the reviewing process that we observed?
Perhaps, we can raise a motion to use Open-Review in the next conferences.
Shall we demand that discussions between the Reviewer and ACs are released?
One can make better decisions with more information. The discussion can tell us if our paper was properly assessed or rejected due to randomness. For example, reviewers and AC are sometimes sloppy with borderline papers.