Researcher Slams ARR For Raising Review Loads Without Consent

There are plenty of other things they could have done: recruit more (meta)reviewers (eg from previous rounds, from COLM/NeurIPS), elongate the timelines for (meta)reviewing, lower the number of reviews per paper, make room for middle-ground exceptions, etc.

The reason I'm pissed about this is that I take my job as meta-reviewer very seriously and it takes a lot of effort (even got awarded Outstanding meta-reviewer), and because of this, I will have to lower my standards to do all my meta-reviews this cycle; that's v frustrating.

Note that, sure, we can definitely put in place limits of how many papers any author can be on, and might that's a fair way to limit the nb of submissions (maybe? I don't know how much those highly prolific authors actually overload the system vs. new people in the field)

But forcing people to do 2-3x the amount of work they said they could do is BONKERS given a) the amount of chasing late reviewers and b) the low quality of most reviews. It's just gonna be terrible late reviews. Don't overburden the people who are already doing their best.