Just a musings for the future here while entering bids on my meta reviews: it’s interesting to see how the “relevance” score might be based on preferences for primary and secondary subject areas.
I see now that either my “preferences” don’t always match what I would like to review and/or the areas may not reflect the best choice from authors.
I wonder if we should revise the lists of primary/secondary subject areas to specifically support review bidding rather than the present categorisation?
e.g. as a made up example, I might prefer to review work with a artistic research methodology, but don’t mind whether it’s an installation or a new instrument, but the subject areas.
maybe primary areas could be a more restricted list of “type of contribution” (e.g., echoing Wobbrock’s CHI paper on contribution types in some way) and secondary could be the exhaustive list of “stuff this paper might include”