Thanks for an interesting study, I left my comments also on Twitter @RIPRJournal

In section 3, I would welcome a description on how many submissions are there on average per year, and how many reviewers per submission, ideally accounting for how many reviewer reports were written by those submitting that year.

Please list the dates when u sent out the survey and that of the reminders. How many addresses did you send it to, what would be the response rate? Are authors in anyway involved with organisation of alt.chi, or did they ever submit or review for it (COI)?. Was there an ethics approval for the study?

In 4.1. I would advise adding initials of authors to the tasks they performed. Appendix A and Section A of the questionnaire are missing. Also, in the appendix, please list the number of answers per each question. What were the respondents’ answers to questions 17 and 18?

In section 4.1. if comments are divided into (possibly) positive and negative, how many fall into which category, and could you show this also per respondent.

For discussion - another possible exploration would be comparing reviewers of the open alt.chi with those of other tracks, in light of what issues are most commonly addressed, and in light of answers you present (e.g. stimulate the discussions between reviewers).