The review process was interesting for me: the discussions and reviews exposes one to a diversity of opinion and perspectives that one doesn't always get in one-on-one discussions, and there is a lot to learn.
Probably even more importantly, it gives me a better sense of what kinds of papers get into SODA. With the competition being what it is (this year I believe is a record low for acceptance), the goal changes from finding papers to accept to finding papers to reject, which means that papers have be a lot more polished, a lot more relevant, and a lot more interesting (at least to some subset of reviewers) than before. A paper that is overall decent has a tough battle, because of the sheer size of the submitted set.
The main problem of scale we face (and have been doing so for a few years now), is the reviewer load, (and at 65+ papers/person, we do have an issue). The question that really comes up is: is it that the (roughly) same set of people are writing more papers, or is it that there are just more people in the SODA community ? The answer is important, because it governs how we address the issue of reviewer load.
If there are overall more people entering the community, then it makes sense to continue to increase commitee sizes, expand conference durations and/or number of papers accepted (by shortening presentation times) and other such strategies. If it is that people are writing more papers, it is less clear what one can do about this, other than starting new conferences/journals...
Returning to the issue of reviewer load, I recently heard two different radical strategies that attempt to deal with different aspects of the problem.
* To handle the case of recycled papers that go from conference to conference in the hope of finding reviewers that haven't seen them:
- Create a repository where all submitted papers are registered. When a paper is submitted to a conference, a link is set up, and then when reviews return, they are filed with the paper. If the paper is submitted again, the reviews are there to see.
Main cons: public flagellation of papers is never a good idea, and authors could always create new entries to defeat this scheme
* To handle the issue of review quality and the perception of unfairness
- once papers have been accepted, make reviews for accepted papers public (anonymously).