> However i would beg for highly-technical reviews, providing harsh theoretical and technical feedback, which i guess would come from more experienced or expert

> However i would beg for highly-technical reviews, providing harsh theoretical and technical feedback, which i guess would come from more experienced or expert reviewers than postgrads or myself. Grad students are plenty capable of writing these reviews. They might even be responsible for most of them. But the problem is still that there's very little incentive to write these kinds of reviews. As a reviewer, I don't even know how the author will accept it -- will they engage with the criticism and re-work their paper? Or will they ignore it, mildly re-write the introduction, and then re-submit to the next conference? I have seen enough examples of the latter to blunt my enthusiasm as a reviewer for providing detailed constructive feedback. Unfortunately, I think the most useful feedback may come after acceptance, when you give the talk/present the poster and people actually pay attention. It's much easier to interact in good faith when the person is right in front of you. I sympathize with relative "outsiders" to a field who can only get expert attention through reviews. The above issue makes things difficult. Attending workshops can be useful for this. > The ~30 papers were an outcome of collaborative R&D projects with universities and companies, most of those just having my name in the authors and requiring me to quickly read and comment them, instead of spending effort to produce the results presented. Ah, this is not the norm in theory. Our author order is alphabetical, so the working assumption is that every co-author has seriously contributed to at least one (and hopefully all) of 1) original idea for the paper 2) technical work (proving a result, implementing an algorithm) 3) actually writing the paper. There are still people who publish 20 papers a year, but this is rare.