ICML 2010 Feedback
1. Did you serve as an area chair at ICML 2010?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
Yes
100,0%27
No 0,0%0
2. Are you going to attend ICML 2010 in Haifa?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
Yes
29,6%8
No
70,4%19
viewMy main reason for not attending is:13
3. What model do you prefer for assigning area chairs to papers? (multiple selections possible)
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 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)
66,7%18
Authors supply area keywords, and the system matches area chairs to papers by keyword overlap.
29,6%8
Authors bid on area chairs. (last year's model)
14,8%4
viewI have the following alternative proposal:
11,1%3
4. What model do you prefer for assigning reviewers to papers? (multiple selections possible)
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 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)
51,9%14
Two-phase model like above, but area chairs manually assign reviewers in both phases.
11,1%3
Single-phase model, where reviewers are assigned to papers based on their bids.
14,8%4
Single-phase model, where reviewers are manually assigned by the area chairs.
14,8%4
viewI have the following alternative proposal:
22,2%6
5. What reviewing model do you prefer?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
double-blind (reviewers do not know the authors, and vice versa) (as this year)
66,7%18
single-blind (reviewers know the authors, but authors don't know the reviewers)
22,2%6
open (reviewers and authors know each other's identities)
11,1%3
6. Do you think the Phase I reviews were different in quality from the Phase II reviews?
 answered question26
 
skipped question1
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
Phase I substantially better
7,7%2
Phase I slightly better
15,4%4
Both were the same
38,5%10
Phase II slightly better
23,1%6
Phase II substantially better
15,4%4
7. Do you think the ICML2010 reviews were different in quality from the reviews at previous ICMLs?
 answered question25
 
skipped question2
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
ICML2010 substantially better
4,0%1
ICML2010 slightly better
12,0%3
About the same
76,0%19
Previous ICMLs slightly better
8,0%2
Previous ICMLs substantially better 0,0%0
viewAdditional comments:7
8. Do you think the ICML2010 reviews were different in quality from those at related conferences?
 answered question26
 
skipped question1
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
ICML2010 substantially better
19,2%5
ICML2010 slightly better
7,7%2
About the same
53,8%14
Other conferences slightly better
19,2%5
Other conferences substantially better 0,0%0
viewWhat conference are you comparing to and what is the subject area?11
9. What do you think of early rejects by area chairs (i.e., rejecting a paper based on two reviews and author rebuttal)?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
I object to early rejects. Rejected papers should get at least three reviews. 0,0%0
I support early rejects, but only in very clear cases (approximately 13% of submissions this year).
77,8%21
Area chairs should make more liberal use of early rejects.
22,2%6
10. What do you think of early accepts (i.e., accepting a paper after only two reviews and author rebuttal)?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
We should not allow this (as it was this year).
70,4%19
We should allow this for papers with exceptionally good reviews.
29,6%8
11. Do you think the author feedback has an influence on the decision of acceptance/rejection?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
Very strong influence. 0,0%0
Substantial influence.
14,8%4
Marginal influence.
77,8%21
No influence.
7,4%2
12. When do you think should authors be asked to provide their feedback?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 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)
33,3%9
After Phase II of the reviewing process, so authors can respond to all reviews, not just the Phase I reviews.
33,3%9
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.
3,7%1
Do not ask for author feedback at all.
7,4%2
viewI have the following alternative proposal:
22,2%6
13. Compared to other conferences, how much effort was it to be a reviewer or area chair for ICML2010?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 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?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 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?
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 very importantimportantsome influenceno influenceRating
Average		Response
Count
Phase I reviews25,9% (7)22,2% (6)44,4% (12)7,4% (2)2,3327
Author feedback0,0% (0)18,5% (5)44,4% (12)37,0% (10)3,1927
16. Which conference tool do you like best?
 answered question14
 
skipped question13
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
CMT (this year)
64,3%9
CyberChair
35,7%5
START 0,0%0
viewOther (please specify)7
17. Did you find CMT
 answered question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
great
3,7%1
comfortable
25,9%7
o.k.
25,9%7
clumsy
40,7%11
awful
3,7%1
18. Do you have any suggestions for improving CMT that we should pass on to its developers?
 answered question7
 
skipped question20
 Response
Count
view7
19. 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 question26
 
skipped question1
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
No, we already accept too many papers.
23,1%6
No, we should not accept more papers even if we get substantially more submissions.
23,1%6
Yes, but include accepted papers that will only be presented as posters.
19,2%5
Yes, add another parallel track.
11,5%3
Yes, add another day of sessions to the program.
23,1%6
viewOther suggestions?2
20. 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 question26
 
skipped question1
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
Yes, we should keep that.
7,7%2
Sounds good in principle, but I have not yet seen the papers.
42,3%11
No, application papers are fine, but we do not need additional incentives for attracting them
23,1%6
No, we should find another way for attracting application papers.
26,9%7
viewOther comments?4
21. 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 question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
Yes.
92,6%25
Yes, but I think it's a bad idea.
7,4%2
No. 0,0%0
22. 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 question27
 
skipped question0
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
Yes.
37,0%10
Yes, but try to find a cheaper way.
7,4%2
No.
55,6%15
23. What other conferences do you regularly attend?
 answered question24
 
skipped question3
 Response
Percent		Response
Count
NIPS
62,5%15
AIStats
20,8%5
UAI
16,7%4
COLT
20,8%5
ECML/PKDD
50,0%12
SIGKDD
20,8%5
ICDM
12,5%3
IJCAI
16,7%4
AAAI
16,7%4
ECAI
16,7%4
EMNLP 0,0%0
CoNLL 0,0%0
SIGIR
8,3%2
viewOther (please specify)4