The biggest issue with the peer review system is reciprocal reviewing, which incentivizes reviewers to unfairly reject good papers to increase their own papers' chances of acceptance.
My proposed solution is that the conference should divide the authors/papers into 2 halves (A and B). If you are an author in half A, then you will only be a reviewer in half B. All papers by the same author, their coauthors, and coauthors of coauthors should be in the same half.
Each AC/SAC can only serve in one half and acceptance decisions for the two halves would be independent. So reciprocal reviewers will not have incentive to reject good papers to serve themselves.
Furthermore, the discussion period for the two halves should not be concurrent. This way the reciprocal reviewer will have sufficient time to discuss author rebuttals as they will not have to deal with their own papers concurrently. Maybe the first 2 weeks can be the discussion period for half A, and the next two weeks for half B.
I don't think conference organizers have thought of this solution, because if they have, there is no excuse for not trying to implement it because it does not hurt the conference's self-interest in any way.
Does anyone think this will work? If so, I hope someone of more power than me might ask the conferences to implement it.
[link] [comments]