Table of Contents
What is a conference rebuttal?
Many conferences have therefore introduced a rebuttal phase that allows authors to respond to the (initial) set of reviews. The rebuttal is an opportunity to clarify misunderstandings, answer questions the reviewers may have, or to expand on a given point the reviewers complained about.
Are rebuttals useful?
In a debate, a rebuttal is the part where you explain what is flawed about the other side’s argument. Either way, the key to a good rebuttal is proving that the opposing argument is irrelevant or contains logical fallacies.
How to write paper rebuttal?
5 Effective Tips for Writing a Good Academic Rebuttal Letter
- Tip 1: Be Polite and Respectful.
- Tip 2: Provide Point-by-Point Replies to All the Referees’ Comments.
- Tip 3: Highlighting Changes in Your Manuscript.
- Tip 4: Choose the Right Ending.
- Tip 5: Becoming a Reviewer.
How to review CVPR papers?
CMT Instructions
- Download your papers.
- Check for possible conflict or submission rule violations.
- Review papers and assign them a preliminary (pre-rebuttal) rating.
- (Optional) Review papers offline.
- Participate in discussions with Area Chairs and other reviewers.
- Enter your final (post-rebuttal) recommendation.
How do you respond to a rebuttal?
Be respectful in your reply. First, thank the reviewer for his/her in-depth analysis and useful comments. Then, explain where you feel you cannot completely agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. Your answer should be clear and logical and should be backed by evidence.
How do you write a rebuttal to a reviewer?
This stepwise breakdown of writing a rebuttal letter aims to assist authors during the revision to ensure grant of appeal.
- Step 1: Say Thank You. Acknowledge the reviewers time, comments and expertise.
- Step 2: Be Modest.
- Step 3: Keep it Short.
- Step 4: Explain Everything.
- Step 5: Major Comments and Minor Comments.
How do you write a rebuttal letter for a conference?
Your response must focus on the following: Answers to specific questions raised by reviewers (if any). Factual errors in the reviews….Some good practices include:
- Acknowledge good suggestions made by the reviewer.
- If the reviewers suggestion makes no sense or is not valid – explain why their review is invalid.
Is CVPR peer reviewed?
As voted on at the CVPR 2015 PAMI-TC meeting, ArXiv papers are not considered prior work since they have not been peer reviewed. Therefore, you should review your CVPR papers independently as if the ArXiv papers didn’t exist.
Is CVPR open review?
Our code is open-source and available at https://github.com/sacmehta/ESPNetv2.
Do reviewers see each others comments?
In EM, journals can optionally share reviewer identities, reviewer comments, and decision letters with other reviewers. This means that EM supports the most common “open” peer review workflows where reviewers are allowed to see each other’s comments.
How will the MICCAI Conference review process work?
The MICCAI Conference review process will be double-blind, i.e. the names of the authors will be hidden from the Area Chairs and Reviewers, and the names of Reviewers and Area Chairs will not be revealed to the authors. To achieve this, papers must be properly anonymized before submission.
How many reviewers are assigned to each paper?
• Area chairs assign each of their papers to 3 (or for SIGGRAPH, 5) reviewers. • Reviewers read and review 5 – 15 papers. • Authors respond to reviews. • Area chairs read reviews and author/reviewer dialog and look at paper and decide whether to reject or accept as poster or oral talk.
How to write a rebuttal letter for a negative review?
Do not take a negative comment from the reviewer as a personal attack. Try to look at it with a neutral perspective and address it to the best of your ability. Avoid using phrases like “we completely disagree” in your rebuttal letter.
What to do when you disagree with a reviewer’s comments?
Be polite in your response when you disagree with any comment/suggestion. Wherever required, cite references, or include supplementary/unpublished data in support of your argument. Resubmit promptly and ensure that changes made to the manuscript based on the reviewers’ suggestions are clearly indicated. Don’t argue every single comment.