[e2e] double bland reviewing

[David P. Reed]

Separate the two problems: conference integrity and constructive feedback.

If an author needs honest and constructive feedback, that is best obtained 
by seeking out reviewers separate from a "judging" process such as the 
program committee.   The goal of the program committee and peer review 
judgment of quality is not well aligned to the process of improving 
unselected papers.   Selection comes first, and improving comes after.

I doubt that eliminating reviewer anonymity would eliminate cheap shots and 
logrolling (which happen at selection - most reviewers usually engage with 
papers they like).   The game would then just turn to low ratings with 
minimal justification.

Cheap shots and logrolling should be obvious to the program committee, who 
should disregard those reviews in any case.

If you want to eliminate the effect of cheap shots and logrolling, make the 
program committee process transparent and public - it's there (in my 
experience) that the integrity of a conference is lost.