To see the effect of pooled reviewing I have looked up some submission numbers from [icsd.i2r.a-star.edu.sg
] They give the average number of papers and accepted papers for all IACR venues. From there we get:
* around 640 submissions to the flagship conferences (110 accepted)
* around 430 submissions to the workshops (120 accepted)
The big question is: how many of these are re-submits?
Let's assume that for each paper accepted there are two that get favourable reviews - so the authors are "implicitly invited" to resubmit (hopefully after making changes). The problem is more pressing for the flagship conferences as their submission dates are roughly spread around the year while a PKC paper cannot go to FSE or vice versa.
So let's fix 200 re-submissions for the flagship conferences. For the workshops, I would also put 100-200 - but for a different reason: When a paper gets rejected from a flagship conference (with not so favourable reviews), the authors may decide to resubmit for a workshop.
Hence, we talk about 300-400 papers here that would not need additional reviews if we use pooled reviewings. Which basically means we eliminate the equivalent of one conference plus one workshop PC :-)
I know it's all guesswork - but impressive guesswork, isn't it ;-)
Based on this, we would have a total of 600-700 papers / year to review under the new regime. Even if we accept 50% of all papers (strictly upper bound), we "only" increase the bandwidth from 230 papers to 350. Which is not too bad from my point of view.
Again - it's only guesswork. For example, I would very much like to have more reliable figures on the number of re-submits then the "educated guess" from above.