After several years of serving on program committees at computer security conferences, I recently decided to take a hiatus. The time commitment became overwhelming, but overall I consider serving on PCs a worthwhile experience and hope to eventually get back in the game after taking a break. If you’re considering donating time to review papers, I’ll mention a few things that I find worthwhile about the experience:
- It’s a fast way to learn what makes a paper likely to get accepted – much faster in my experience than writing papers and submitting them for review.
- It’s a forcing function to stay somewhat up-to-date with research in your area, which can be easy to treat as low priority if you work in industry.
- It’s an opportunity to become familiar with research outside your immediate area; I often aimed to review some papers that were just outside my comfort zone so that I would learn something new.
Despite these upsides, it’s easy to find many people complaining about serving on PCs and about other aspects of the computer science peer review process. I have my gripes too, but I think mine are mostly fixable.
The typical program committee experience
Among the conferences on which I’ve served as a PC member, the review process is pretty similar. It goes like this:
- Upon joining the PC, you select from among a set of topics of interest.
- After a submission deadline (which used to be annually but is now
quarterly, for most top-tier security conferences), PC members bid
on papers they want to review. You look through submission titles
and abstracts, pre-sorted by how well they match to the topics of
interest you selected, and you set a score for each one. Higher
scores mean you want to review the paper.
- It used to be easy to overthink the bidding scores, with some conferences allowing you to score between -100 and 100, but conferences seem to be moving towards a simpler model where you have just a few options (e.g., 3 = I would love to review this paper, 2 = I want to review this paper, 1 = I wouldn’t mind, 0 = no opinion, -1 = definitely not). Bidding can actually take up a lot of time if you let it – some top-tier conferences get upwards of 500 papers per submission deadline – and I find the simplified scoring system to be a big quality-of-life improvement.
- A few days later, the PC chairs send review assignments. In my experience it’s typical to have 3-5 papers to review per submission cycle, with maybe 1-2 months allotted for reviewing.
- Before you submit your review for a paper, you can see who else is assigned as a reviewer but can’t read any other reviews.
- Most conferences seem to have at least 2 rounds of reviews. In the first round, there are typically just 2 reviewers, and if they are both negative, the paper gets rejected at this point. Papers may also get “desk-rejected” if they, for example, violate formatting guidelines or aren’t properly anonymized. Then, for papers that make it to the second round, 2-3 more reviewers are assigned.
- After the second round reviewing deadline, the discussion period opens. At this point, reviewers discuss amongst themselves asynchronously. Some conferences allow for an author rebuttal, or even asynchronous interactivity between the anonymized authors and reviewers (e.g., authors can provide a rebuttal, reviewers can respond to the rebuttal with a question that the authors can answer).
- During the discussion period, reviewers may update their reviews and even change their accept/reject decision. In fact, PC chairs will often encourage reviewers to do so, so that the final reviews and decisions released to authors are consistent.
- Pre-Covid, everyone on the PC would fly to some location for an in-person PC meeting to discuss all the papers before final decisions were released to authors. I’ve only been to one of these. People say that in-person PC meetings were important for networking and that especially early career academics are really missing out on one of the main benefits of serving on PCs. However, in the cold light of 2023, flying 50+ people around the world, for a one day meeting to discuss dozens of papers from which most people have only read a small handful, just doesn’t have the right vibes. Instead, these days PC chairs strongly encourage reviewers to come to a decision on each paper via asynchronous online discussion. Then a virtual PC meeting is scheduled to discuss only the papers for which a decision couldn’t be reached.
- Finally, decisions are released to authors, sometimes with shepherding or revision requirements to cement an “Accept” decision.
If I were running a PC, here’s what I would do differently.
Make reviewer discussions less repetitive
The most eyeroll-inducing aspect of the review process is the amount of repetition. Typically, once all reviews for a paper have been submitted, a PC chair will appear in the review portal to say something like, “Ok, all reviews are in! Please discuss amongst yourselves and come to a decision!” Following that, most reviewers summarize their reviews to each other and repeat their decision. Sometimes there is some substantive debate, often there is not. Often, there are several rounds of people simply restating their opinions in response to another reviewer’s disagreement. As the decision deadline approaches, a PC chair will again appear and say something like, “We need to come to a decision soon!” This is followed by reviewers again summarizing their review and restating their position. If there is disagreement, and no one feels strongly positive about the paper, gradually everyone who gave an Accept decision says something like, “I’m okay with letting this one go” and then a Reject decision is reached.
Overall, the process feels repetitive and inefficient, and somewhat like a choreographed dance when we could instead jump to the end state that everyone knows is coming.
Some conferences appoint associate chairs and/or discussion leads for each paper. These people have the job of facilitating decision-making, which often takes the form of giving the “Please discuss amongst yourselves!” and “We need to reach a decision soon!” prompts.
If I were in charge, I would replace discussion leads with decision leads. The job of the decision lead would be to read the reviews, ask clarifying questions or probe at reviewers’ positions, and make a decision (perhaps with some appeal process for reviewers to escalate to the PC chairs). I think a lot of the inefficiency of the current process comes from the fact that it’s rare to reach consensus on the subjective matter of a paper’s merits, and yet no one is empowered to make a decision in lieu of consensus.
Having decision leads would be less democratic but likely vastly more efficient. This especially makes sense if you view peer review as a system for weeding out obviously bad or wrong ideas, rather than as a system for rigorously ensuring the merits of published papers, but that’s a philosophical debate for another time.
Abolish PC meetings
As I hinted above, I don’t think we should go back to in-person PC meetings. While I recognize some upsides of in-person PC meetings, they’re just too expensive and inefficient. Nixing travel requirements makes PC membership more inclusive; enables more frequent submission deadlines and review cycles; enables a larger reviewer pool, which makes the job more sustainable; and is vastly more ethical from a climate perspective.
That said, virtual PC meetings are awful too. I think the transition to virtual meetings may have been made in haste due to Covid and wasn’t entirely thought through.
- Reviewer pools are global and the virtual PC meeting is bound to be at a ghastly time for some people.
- Virtual PC meetings are scheduled weeks or months in advance, but the exact timings and agenda are unknown until shortly before the meeting, because attendance is only required for reviewers of papers who haven’t reached a decision via online discussion. In practice, even though I know the date of the virtual PC meeting ahead of time, I don’t reserve the time, because I don’t know exactly which time to block off and it seems silly to block off a whole day for a meeting that I likely won’t need to attend. So whenever I do need to attend a virtual PC meeting, it’s a scramble to make it work. Presumably because of similar scheduling problems, oftentimes “mandatory” attendees don’t show up.
- Virtual PC meetings often just rehash disagreements that came up in the discussion period and sometimes end with a PC chair making a fairly arbitrary decision so that everyone can move on.
If I were in charge, I would simply not have PC meetings. Instead, when reviewers can’t reach a decision, they should just schedule a call amongst themselves as needed.
Define evaluation criteria
My biggest gripe is probably the hardest to fix: most conferences have virtually no criteria for what to accept or reject. Reviewers will often say things like “This doesn’t meet the bar for $CONFERENCE”, or “This might be better-suited for a workshop”, or “This contribution isn’t large enough” – with no further elaboration on what those statements mean. I’m certainly guilty of statements like these myself, and I don’t blame anyone else who is guilty too; after all, we aren’t given any other tools to judge papers’ merits! Besides tribal knowledge, there’s no definition of what would meet the bar for any given conference, what differentiates a top-tier conference paper from a lower-tier conference paper from a workshop paper, or what constitutes a large enough contribution (or what defines a “contribution” in the first place).
In contrast, as a manager at a large tech company, I would never dream of giving a person performance feedback such as “Your work doesn’t meet the bar” without further elaboration, or at least pointing to the global job ladder that defines performance at each level. Coming from industry, where job performance is evaluated on carefully defined and closely analyzed rubrics, evaluating papers for conferences feels like the wild west.
With this level of subjectivity, the end result is a lot of bias, inconsistency, and unpredictability in peer review decision-making. Though it would be a large undertaking, conferences need rubrics: well-defined axes on which reviewers should evaluate papers, with definitions and examples of subpar, acceptable, and exemplary merit on each axis.
Lest it seem overwhelming to define rubrics upfront, I think paper rubrics can be introduced incrementally and improved upon over time. They’ll eventually converge to a state that facilitates more equitable and consistent decisions.
I don’t aspire to ever serve as a PC chair, which seems like an extremely time-consuming and thankless job – but I will gladly serve on any PC whose chair takes my suggestions and puts them into action! (After my hiatus, that is.)