[mo_42]

> Everyone accessing someone's uncritically reviewed work is a bittersweet gift.

Review work is not always done by senior researcher (e.g., professors). Senior researchers often hand this down to PhDs. Having 3 to 4 reviews by nice junior reviewers doesn't sound very critical.

[Beldin]

Just to be clear: you'd expect PhD students to be trained in reviewing by their supervisors.

So PhD students writing the initial review is not weird - it is an expected part of their training. As is the supervisor going over the review and providing constructive feedback. As is the review being submitted under the supervisor's responsibility, with credits (mention in proceedings) to the student for acting as a subreviewer.

Yes, there are ways to abuse this system and yes, abuses do occur. Any system for gaining job prestige or workload reduction is a target for gaming. This doesn't mean the system should be thrashed, but it does warrant additions to curb excesses.

[hedora]

If a late-stage PhD student in the same narrow technical field can't review the paper, then it's almost certainly a problem with the paper. After all, junior people are the primary audience for any paper. Also, PhD students often have more depth on their research topic than the professors.

The sibling comments about making sure that most reviews are written by senior researchers also make good points. That should be checked by the program committee or editor.

[mnky9800n]

They have to say they did this and you are forgetting the editor's role in paper evaluation. This criticism can and is taken into account and you can send papers out for more reviews if you get conflicting ones. In my experience as an editor, junior people typically give better reviews than senior (unless they are emeritus and then have unlimited time). I suppose this has to do with confidence in the junior person who will question their review themselves.