Result Summary for Survey:ICML 2010 Feedback

ICML 2010 Feedback

1. Did you serve as an area chair at ICML 2010?
	answered question		560
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes		4.8%	27
No		95.2%	533

2. Did you serve as a reviewer at ICML 2010?
	answered question		560
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes		34.8%	195
No		65.2%	365

3. Are you an author of a rejected ICML 2010 paper?
	answered question		560
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes		51.6%	289
No		48.4%	271

4. Are you an author of an accepted ICML 2010 paper?
	answered question		560
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes		30.5%	171
No		69.5%	389

5. Are you going to attend ICML 2010 in Haifa?
	answered question		560
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes		27.3%	153
No		72.7%	407
viewMy main reason for not attending is:			305

6. What model do you prefer for assigning area chairs to papers? (multiple selections possible)
	answered question		460
	skipped question		100
		Response Percent	Response Count
Authors supply area keywords, and area chairs bid on papers primarily in the areas they agreed to cover. The assignment of area chairs to areas is public to the authors. (this year's model)		75.4%	347
Authors supply area keywords, and the system matches area chairs to papers by keyword overlap.		18.7%	86
Authors bid on area chairs. (last year's model)		17.0%	78
viewI have the following alternative proposal:		3.3%	15

7. What model do you prefer for assigning reviewers to papers? (multiple selections possible)
	answered question		470
	skipped question		90
		Response Percent	Response Count
Two-phase model mixing bidding and manual assignment. In Phase I, reviewer bidding is used to assign two reviewers to each paper. In Phase II, area chairs manually assign additional reviewers based on the Phase I reviews and the author rebuttal. (this year's model)		60.6%	285
Two-phase model like above, but area chairs manually assign reviewers in both phases.		17.7%	83
Single-phase model, where reviewers are assigned to papers based on their bids.		16.8%	79
Single-phase model, where reviewers are manually assigned by the area chairs.		11.7%	55
viewI have the following alternative proposal:		5.7%	27

8. What reviewing model do you prefer?
	answered question		473
	skipped question		87
		Response Percent	Response Count
double-blind (reviewers do not know the authors, and vice versa) (as this year)		81.2%	384
single-blind (reviewers know the authors, but authors don't know the reviewers)		12.1%	57
open (reviewers and authors know each other's identities)		6.8%	32

9. Do you think the Phase I reviews were different in quality from the Phase II reviews?
	answered question		439
	skipped question		121
		Response Percent	Response Count
Phase I substantially better		10.7%	47
Phase I slightly better		15.5%	68
Both were the same		45.1%	198
Phase II slightly better		19.1%	84
Phase II substantially better		9.6%	42

10. Do you think the ICML2010 reviews were different in quality from the reviews at previous ICMLs?
	answered question		369
	skipped question		191
		Response Percent	Response Count
ICML2010 substantially better		4.6%	17
ICML2010 slightly better		14.1%	52
About the same		67.2%	248
Previous ICMLs slightly better		9.2%	34
Previous ICMLs substantially better		4.9%	18
viewAdditional comments:			57

11. Do you think the ICML2010 reviews were different in quality from those at related conferences?
	answered question		427
	skipped question		133
		Response Percent	Response Count
ICML2010 substantially better		11.5%	49
ICML2010 slightly better		26.7%	114
About the same		45.2%	193
Other conferences slightly better		12.2%	52
Other conferences substantially better		4.4%	19
viewWhat conference are you comparing to and what is the subject area?			98

12. What do you think of early rejects by area chairs (i.e., rejecting a paper based on two reviews and author rebuttal)?
	answered question		467
	skipped question		93
		Response Percent	Response Count
I object to early rejects. Rejected papers should get at least three reviews.		17.6%	82
I support early rejects, but only in very clear cases (approximately 13% of submissions this year).		72.2%	337
Area chairs should make more liberal use of early rejects.		10.3%	48

13. What do you think of early accepts (i.e., accepting a paper after only two reviews and author rebuttal)?
	answered question		466
	skipped question		94
		Response Percent	Response Count
We should not allow this (as it was this year).		59.7%	278
We should allow this for papers with exceptionally good reviews.		40.3%	188

14. Do you think the author feedback has an influence on the decision of acceptance/rejection?
	answered question		467
	skipped question		93
		Response Percent	Response Count
Very strong influence.		3.0%	14
Substantial influence.		17.6%	82
Marginal influence.		59.3%	277
No influence.		20.1%	94

15. When do you think should authors be asked to provide their feedback?
	answered question		466
	skipped question		94
		Response Percent	Response Count
After Phase I of the reviewing process, so it can inform the selection of Phase II reviewers and is immediately available during the discussion. (this year's model)		51.9%	242
After Phase II of the reviewing process, so authors can respond to all reviews, not just the Phase I reviews.		19.5%	91
Ask for author feedback both after Phase I and Phase II, even though the paper submission deadline would need to be moved to January 15.		14.4%	67
Do not ask for author feedback at all.		7.3%	34
viewI have the following alternative proposal:		6.9%	32

13. Compared to other conferences, how much effort was it to be a reviewer or area chair for ICML2010? (Area Chairs only)
	answered question		27
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Substantially more effort		3,7%	1
Slightly more effort		33,3%	9
About average		51,9%	14
Slightly less effort		7,4%	2
Substantially less effort		3,7%	1
viewComments:			7

14. Throughout the reviewing process, was it always clear to you what needed to be done? (Area Chairs only)
	answered question		27
	skipped question		0
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes.		63,0%	17
Most of the time.		33,3%	9
Mostly not clear.		3,7%	1
viewComments:			5

15. How well do you think did the Phase I reviews and the author feedback inform a good selection of Phase II reviewers? (Area Chairs only)
	answered question					27
	skipped question					0
	very important	important	some influence	no influence	Rating Average	Response Count
Phase I reviews	25,9% (7)	22,2% (6)	44,4% (12)	7,4% (2)	2,33	27
Author feedback	0,0% (0)	18,5% (5)	44,4% (12)	37,0% (10)	3,19	27

13. How did you like your assignments in the first reviewing phase? (Reviewers only)
	answered question		164
	skipped question		31
		Response Percent	Response Count
very interesting		9,8%	16
good fit with my expertise		84,1%	138
mostly not my area		6,1%	10
terrible		0,0%	0

14. How did you like your assignments in the second reviewing phase? (Reviewers only)
	answered question		141
	skipped question		54
		Response Percent	Response Count
very interesting		12,8%	18
good fit with my expertise		80,9%	114
mostly not my area		6,4%	9
terrible		0,0%	0

15. How would you like to receive your assignment? (Reviewers only)
	answered question		170
	skipped question		25
		Response Percent	Response Count
An area chair who knows me should assign them to me		12,9%	22
I want to bid for my papers		32,9%	56
We should try a mix of both models		51,2%	87
Don't care		2,9%	5

16. Did you look at the supplementary materials of the papers? (Reviewers only)
	answered question		171
	skipped question		24
		Response Percent	Response Count
always		22,2%	38
sometimes		33,9%	58
never		8,8%	15
my papers didn't have any		28,7%	49
I don't know whether my papers had any		6,4%	11

17. As a reviewer, how did you rate the author feedback of your papers? (Reviewers only)
	answered question		168
	skipped question		27
		Response Percent	Response Count
it changed my mind about a paper		7,7%	13
it helped to clarify a few questions, but did not change my mind		75,0%	126
it was not useful		14,9%	25
I did not see it		2,4%	4

18. Throughout the reviewing process, was it always clear to you what needed to be done? (Reviewers only)
	answered question		170
	skipped question		25
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes.		66,5%	113
Most of the time.		32,9%	56
Mostly not clear.		0,6%	1
viewComments:			7

25. Do you think the majority of the reviews of your paper were (Authors only)
	answered question		341
	skipped question		95
		Response Percent	Response Count
right to the point		13,5%	46
high quality		53,1%	181
low quality		24,0%	82
the reviewers did not understand my paper		9,4%	32

26. How do you rate the length of the majority of the reviews? (Authors only)
	answered question		343
	skipped question		93
		Response Percent	Response Count
too long		2,3%	8
just right		77,8%	267
too short		19,8%	68

27. Do you think the reviewers read your feedback? (Authors only)
	answered question		348
	skipped question		88
		Response Percent	Response Count
yes, and they took it into consideration		14,7%	51
yes, but they ignored it		18,4%	64
I'm not sure		59,2%	206
certainly not		7,8%	27

28. Do you think that the meta reviewer (area chair) adequately summarized the reviewers' opinions and made a right decision? (Authors only)
	answered question		336
	skipped question		100
		Response Percent	Response Count
yes		39,3%	132
somewhat, but mostly OK		38,7%	130
no		17,0%	57
there was no justification of the decision		5,1%	17

29. How do you rate the length of the meta review(s)? (Authors only)
	answered question		332
	skipped question		104
		Response Percent	Response Count
too long		0,9%	3
just right		72,6%	241
too short		26,5%	88

30. Will you submit again to a future ICML conference? (Authors only)
	answered question		348
	skipped question		88
		Response Percent	Response Count
yes		76,7%	267
no		2,3%	8
don't know yet		21,0%	73

31. Which conference tool do you like best?
	answered question		288
	skipped question		272
		Response Percent	Response Count
CMT (this year)		83.0%	239
CyberChair		12.5%	36
START		4.5%	13
viewOther (please specify)			36

32. Did you find CMT
	answered question		411
	skipped question		149
		Response Percent	Response Count
great		9.2%	38
comfortable		39.9%	164
o.k.		42.3%	174
clumsy		6.6%	27
awful		1.9%	8

33. Do you have any suggestions for improving CMT that we should pass on to its developers?
	answered question	53
	skipped question	507
		Response Count
view		53

34. With ca. 160 accepted and invited papers, the program currently fills 5 parallel tracks on three days to the limit. Should we allow the conference to grow further?
	answered question		401
	skipped question		159
		Response Percent	Response Count
No, we already accept too many papers.		15.7%	63
No, we should not accept more papers even if we get substantially more submissions.		25.7%	103
Yes, but include accepted papers that will only be presented as posters.		31.9%	128
Yes, add another parallel track.		11.0%	44
Yes, add another day of sessions to the program.		15.7%	63
viewOther suggestions?			17

35. This year, we invited 7 application papers, which got a free entry to the program and a slot in the proceedings. Do you think this is a good idea?
	answered question		424
	skipped question		136
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes, we should keep that.		15.8%	67
Sounds good in principle, but I have not yet seen the papers.		52.6%	223
No, application papers are fine, but we do not need additional incentives for attracting them		18.6%	79
No, we should find another way for attracting application papers.		13.0%	55
viewOther comments?			24

36. At this year´s conference, proceedings on paper, USB or CD will not be available, but papers can be downloaded from the Web page. Does this work for you?
	answered question		436
	skipped question		124
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes.		89.0%	388
Yes, but I think it's a bad idea.		7.6%	33
No.		3.4%	15

37. As in previous years, printed proceedings will be available from Omnipress (this year only after the conference). This service is not free (about 6$ per registration). Do you think we should still produce printed proceedings for archival purposes?
	answered question		430
	skipped question		130
		Response Percent	Response Count
Yes.		35.1%	151
Yes, but try to find a cheaper way.		11.6%	50
No.		53.3%	229

38. What other conferences do you regularly attend?
	answered question		337
	skipped question		223
		Response Percent	Response Count
NIPS		68.2%	230
AIStats		19.3%	65
UAI		19.3%	65
COLT		11.6%	39
ECML/PKDD		31.5%	106
SIGKDD		18.4%	62
ICDM		12.5%	42
IJCAI		20.8%	70
AAAI		22.8%	77
ECAI		6.8%	23
EMNLP		6.2%	21
CoNLL		1.2%	4
SIGIR		7.7%	26
viewOther (please specify)			61