Summary: Rethinking the Conference Reviewing Process
Moderators: Michael J. Franklin (UC Berkeley) and Jennifer Widom (Stanford)
Panelists: Anastassia Ailamaki (Carnegie Mellon), Philip A. Bernstein (Microsoft), David DeWitt (Wisconsin),
Alon Halevy (Washington), Zachary Ives (U Penn), and Gerhard Weikum (Max Planck Institute)
In recent years the database research community has
endeavored to expand the scope of the field and attract a larger
and more varied base of participants. We have also long worked
at "educating" academic tenure committees and research
management about the importance of our major conferences.
We may now be seeing some unintended effects of our success.
There is a growing dissatisfaction with conference reviewing
from all sides of the process. Many now perceive the process to
be "broken". A number of factors can be identified as
precipitating the discontent:
· The number of submitted papers has spiked dramatically in
recent years (see Figure 1).
· To keep reviewing loads relatively stable, PC sizes have
also increased (see Figure 2).
· Because of PC size, improved online tools, and
overcommitted researchers, face-to-face PC meetings are