Now I really do wonder what would actually happen with monetary incentives. 🤔 For example: If you pay too little, experts might not be interested. If you pay too much, non-experts might try to game the system to get in and score some cash.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
And is my napkin math above on any way realistic? Do conferences like CVPR have $10M laying on the side to spend extra on reviewing? @wjscheirer.bsky.social
We don't --- the bulk of the sponsorship money gets spent on conference operations each year. We do have reserves, but that money is meant to be an insurance policy against unforeseen problems (e.g., another pandemic forcing us to cancel the conference and incur penalties).
Thought as much. So I guess the only scalable way to finance reviewer rewards would be submission fees - and that's not great in terms of equality of opportunity.
I would strongly support submission fees, especially if submitters are required to review. Bonus points if you get some or all of your fee back if your paper gets accepted.
Comments