I don& #39;t understand why CS conferences rely on a peer review system in which real revision is not possible. At @NeurIPSConf for example, author responses are limited to 1 page and there is no follow up; reviewers never get to see a revised manuscript.

In one case, authors could only reply to one of my comments, and said the rest would be addressed in the camera-ready version. It& #39;s not their fault. This is a ridiculous way to run peer review, and it exists only because volume and speed are prioritized over quality.

What& #39;s ironic is that it ends up wasting everyone& #39;s time, because rejected manuscripts are sent to the next conference, with new reviewers and sometimes no improvements. So a paper will get reviewed more times than necessary but without actual quality control.

I think CS conferences should operate two tracks, with a small number of papers that get real peer review process (like a journal), while the rest are workshop papers (to make sure that the conference is inclusive).