Having the option of authors submitting supplementary materials is becoming popular in NLP/ML land. NIPS was one of the first conferences I submit to that has allowed this; I think ACL allowed it this past year, at least for specific types of materials (code, data), and EMNLP is thinking of allowing it at some point in the near future.
Here is a snippet of the NIPS call for papers (see section 5) that describes the role of supplementary materials:
In addition to the submitted PDF paper, authors can additionally submit supplementary material for their paper... Such extra material may include long technical proofs that do not fit into the paper, image, audio or video sample outputs from your algorithm, animations that describe your algorithm, details of experimental results, or even source code for running experiments. Note that the reviewers and the program committee reserve the right to judge the paper solely on the basis of the 8 pages, 9 pages including citations, of the paper; looking at any extra material is up to the discretion of the reviewers and is not required.(Emphasis mine.) Now, before everyone goes misinterpreting what I'm about to say, let me make it clear that in general I like the idea of supplementary materials, given our current publishing model.
You can think of the emphasized part of the call as a form of reviewer protection. It basically says: look, we know that reviewers are overloaded; if your paper isn't very interesting, the reviewers aren't required to read the supplement. (As an aside, I feel the same thing happens with pages 2-8 given page 1 in a lot of cases :P.)
I think it's good to have such a form a reviewer protection. What I wonder is whether it also makes sense to add a form of author protection. In other words, the current policy -- which seems only explicitly stated in the case of NIPS, but seems to be generally understood elsewhere, too -- is that reviewers are protected from overzealous authors. I think we need to have additional clauses that protect authors from overzealous reviewers.
Why? Already I get annoyed with reviewers who seem to think that extra experiments, discussion, proofs or whatever can somehow magically fit in an already crammed 8 page page. A general suggestion to reviewers is that if you're suggesting things to add, you should also suggest things to cut.
This situation is exacerbated infinity-fold with the "option" of supplementary material. There now is no length-limit reason why an author couldn't include everything under the sun. And it's too easy for a reviewer just to say that XYZ should have been included because, well, it could just have gone in the supplementary material!
So what I'm proposing is that supplementary material clauses should have two forms of protection. The first being the existing one, protecting reviewers from overzealous authors. The second being the reverse, something like:
Authors are not obligated to include supplementary materials. The paper should stand on its own, excluding any supplement. Reviewers must take into account the strict 8 page limit when evaluating papers.Or something like that: the wording isn't quite right. But without this, I fear that supplementary materials will, in the limit, simply turn into an arms race.