一，如何有效回复审稿人的意见

一篇文章从最初的idea到最后的定稿，说是“十月怀胎”真的一点都不夸张，中间过程可谓是如人饮水，冷暖自知。最难受的时候莫过于提心吊胆地打开编辑的回复邮件，得到的是审稿人一顿不留情面的diss。

这个时候，如何有效的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要了。由于我们不能面对面和审稿人交流，所以好的回复将会是决定你文章录用的唯一因素；而不恰当的回复，轻则需要重修，重则导致文章被拒，只会白白浪费了时间和精力。

首先一定要摆正自己的心态，在给期刊投稿的时候，尤其是那些影响因子比较高的期刊，千万不要寄希望于自己能直接发表不需要修改，这种情况几乎是不存在的。大多数收到的回复都是Accept with minim revision或者Accept with major revision（也俗称小修或大修）。这些期刊都有完善的同行评议制度，再好的文章也能够挑出毛病，这就是同行评审的重要性。

一般来说，如果收到Accept with minim revision应该算是很不错的了，基本上改改格式，语法之类的就可以满足要求。万一遇到Accept with major revision也不要太难过，所谓大修往往需要补充必要的实验或者理论证明。编辑愿意给你修改的机会就说明他们在一定程度上认可了你文章的内容，只是觉得文章说服力欠佳，你需要做的就是把“故事”讲的更完整，所以一定要仔仔细细的研读审稿人的意见，认真修改，这个过程也是个学习的过程。

下面把平时总结的一些回复审稿人意见的方法跟大家分享一下，希望能对初次投期刊的同学带来一些参考和启发。

原则/态度

1.所有问题必须逐条回答，不要带有侥幸的心理。

2.尽量满足所有的修改意见。

3.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。

4.避免言辞过激，礼貌回应。

5.避免返工。

方法/技巧

1、套话

在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写明修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。这个其实也可以归纳为礼貌用语，大家一般也都会注意到。但是，有些时候还是容易“放飞自我”。实验室的一位师兄，花了很长的时间搞出来一个很有idea的文章。在回复审稿意见的时候，前面还是客客气气的回复，一读到关于自己核心idea的时候，立马心态就炸了，言辞什么的就有点过激了，最后当然直接被拒了。其实能作为审稿人，一般都是这个领域的专家或者有一定贡献的人，既然能指出你的问题，就说明还是存在不合理的地方，那就认认真真去修改就好了，千万不要太持才傲物。

比如在回复的时候，前面加上类似“谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我今后的科研工作都具有重要的指导意义”；结尾也可以写上“再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您那里学到更多的知识。”像这种类似的套话一定要有，时刻保持谦逊。

2、审稿人意见暂时无法实现

第一种是需要你增加实验或改进实验的时候。.原则上尽量满足，实在是不行的，可适当用能说明原理的替代实验满足。当然如果为了论文尽快发表，需要拒绝这样的要求，也不要列出一堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的，这样只会让审稿人认为你在逃避。

还有一种就是评价创新性不足。这种几乎是没法改的。原则是需要准确地概括出本文的核心创新点。当然，首先还是要肯定审稿人说的对，他提出的方法或者已经存在的方法也很好，但本文的核心创新点在于balabala，和已经存在的方法不一样。适当的情况下可以比较下优缺点，加一些这方面的总结（觉得自己归纳的不好就别加了，以防能巧成拙）。

注意！对于这类关于创新不足的意见，一定要好好回复。一旦不被认可的话就会评判为文章没创新点，一个没有创新的文章，很难被录用。

3、审稿人意见有问题

坦白说，概率真的很小，但也不是没有。如果真的遇到了，那也不要太过于激动。大家都是有棱有角的年轻人，血气方刚，自己辛辛苦苦做出来的结果被人否定了当然不爽，尤其是对方还是错误的情况下，发几句牢骚就算了，千万别带到邮件里。子还曾经曰过：人非圣贤孰能无过。要注意言辞，一定不能在文中带有“审稿人的意见是错的”这样的句子。

不要对他的意见发表任何的评论，就在那条审稿意见下，列出你的理由和证据就可以了，也不用刻意强调你的观点是正确的。

4、注意回复时间

把握好回复的时间尺度，原则上是不能让编辑觉得你过于草率，不够重视（更不能超过deadline）。要根据具体的修改意见，掌握好修改时间。即使是minor revision，意见比较少的，只需要花一天甚至几小时搞定的，也不要立刻投回去。至少一周后再投出去，因为在这一周里你还要充足的时间去检查论文里的小毛病，更重要的是，编辑不会觉得你是在敷衍他。如果是major revision，建议至少三周后再投，修改到尽量符合审稿意见上的要求。否则一旦让你重修，将会浪费更多的时间精力。

觉得自己英语不是很好的童鞋，也不要灰心，其实专业词汇就那些。在这里分享一个简单粗暴提升专业英语水平的方法，直接背。其实看似一篇十几页的论文，文字较多的部分也就开头和结尾多一些（理工科一般这样，其它的不清楚，应该差不多）。注意，背诵的对象一定是大牛或高水平的英文文献。

另外，在我大天朝，有需求就会有市场。不过目前市场上提供论文润色服务的机构鱼龙混杂，挑选的时候一定要独具慧眼。千万别找非专业人员润色，很可能失之毫厘谬以千里，学术论文还是很严谨的。

以上只是个人总结的一般性的方法，运用的时候还需要大家见仁见智。总之，目标是不要因为回复审稿意见没写好，错失一篇文章。当然，如果已经做的足够好，最后还是被拒了，这种情况也不要太灰心，很可能是这家期刊的“磁场”和你不符（不是玄学，真的有这种情况），根据审稿的意见好好返修一下，投到其它期刊。

模板

一、修改稿Cover letter
Dear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的Editors）:
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).
We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
××××××
Corresponding author:
Name: ×××
E-mail: ××××@××××

二、修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）
List of Responses
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #1:
1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)
Response: ××××××
2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)
Response: ××××××
。。。。。。
逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏
针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：
We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...
We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...
It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……
We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion
As Reviewer suggested that……
Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……
最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Reviewer #2:
同上述
Reviewer #3:
××××××
Other changes:
1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”
2. Line 107, “……” was added
3. Line 129, “……” was deleted
××××××
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions。

三审稿人这些意见怎么回复？

http://muchong.com/html/201511/9661186.html

四如何回复审稿意见相关不错的博文

原文 https://blog.csdn.net/atytjmt/article/details/89878772

学术会议 Rebuttal 模板

Note that the author rebuttal is optional, and serves to provide you with an opportunity to rebut factual errors in the reviews, or to supply additional information requested by the reviewers.

The rebuttal is limited to 4000 characters. Please be concise and polite. Comments that are not to the point or offensive will make rejection of your paper more likely. Make sure to preserve anonymity in your rebuttal. Links to websites that reveal the authors’identities are not allowed and will be considered a violation of the double-blind policy. Links to websites with new figures, tables, videos or other materials are not allowed.

撰写原则

言简意赅（少说废话，抓住重点，用最少的话让反面意见或中立意见的审稿人改变态度）
结构清晰，语法没毛病（排版组织）
客观陈述事实
千万不要犯“思想政治错误”
不礼貌
抓审稿人文字毛病
破坏双盲评审规定，添加链接等可能暴露身份的信息
阅读之前，你需要清楚以下几点：

内容来自于 NIPS会议公开的 Rebuttal，适用于计算机领域的学术会议【 NIPS会议会把往年已接收的论文的 Rebuttal 贴出来，参见 http://papers.nips.cc/ （只给出了持正面意见的reviewer的意见）NIPS2013 NIPS2014 NIPS2015 】
rebuttal 只会在你论文处于接收边缘的时候起作用，如果reviewers意见普遍很严厉，那么rebuttal的作用几乎可以忽略。当然如果 reviewers 意见普遍很好且没有提问，也可以不写 rebuttal。

Rebuttal 是给审稿人和 area chair 看的。Confidential comment to Area Chair 一般用于举报审稿人（仅area chair可见），不用填。

内容组织

说明：带有星号*的部分为重点内容，其余为可选内容。

首句表达感谢*

即使是反对你的审稿人，也拿出了很多宝贵的时间审阅你的论文，因此作为作者要学会感恩。

We thank the reviewers for acknowledging the strong performance of this work and the quality of the presentation. We address the comments as follows.
感谢好评 We thank the reviewers for their positive and constructive feedbacks.
We thank all the reviewers for helpful comments.
Thanks for all your feedback and suggestions. We will carefully incorporate them into our paper.
Thanks for the helpful comments!
Thank you for the feedback and suggestions, we will add clarification where needed and include suggestions as space permits.
We thank the reviewers for their careful consideration. We greatly appreciate the positive comments and address major concerns below.
框架 We thank all the reviewers for their efforts. We start this rebuttal by reiterating our contributions, and then address specific concerns, especially those from AR6 where there has clearly been some misunderstanding leading to a serious error in his/her review. We kindly ask that AR6 revisits his/her review in light of our clarifications below.
We thank all the reviewers. And we apologize for typos, grammar mistakes, unclear notations and missing citations. They will be corrected such that the overall writing meet NIPS standards. The below clarifications will be added in the paper or supplement either in form of texts or figures.
Thanks to all the reviewers for their time and feedback. We provide some specific responses and clarifications.
We'd like to thank the reviewers for their careful readings and valuable comments. We believe the constructive feedback will improve the paper and increase its potential impact to the community.
第二句再次强调贡献

First, we'd like to emphasize the contributions:
We would like to emphasize that the novelty of the method, which addresses how to efficiently learn the dependency between latent variables without explicit knowledge of the model, has been accepted as valid and legitimate by the reviewers. We are confident this is a useful contribution for making generic inference viable in practice. Omitted comments will be fixed in revision if accepted.
We thank the Reviewers for their constructive comments. We believe the model proposed is very powerful and theoretically deep. We agree with the reviewers that the exposition and experiments should be improved and will address this in the revision.
解答公共问题

如果有几句话想让所有与会审稿人看到，那么这几句话一定要放在最前方。原因也很简单，每个人不可能把你的rebuttal全篇看完，但是前几句大家还是都会瞧几眼的。

We will re-structure the paper to improve clarity. We will also add more details (and add an example, space permitting) and clarify our contributions (Section 4.4) for better understanding. We will also fix minor typos.

解答特有问题*

Then we address major concerns below.

排版参考 nips28/reviews/72.html
对于支持者的感谢

We thank the reviewer for the encouraging comments.

对于反对者的反驳*

一般而言，对于area chair，那个给分比较低的会自然吸引他的眼球，相对占得的权重也就大（这些是area chair的自己之谈），所以rebuttal就是要在有限的言辞里重点反驳这些reviewer。

小毛病可以承认

写作架构的批评认怂就行

R2: "The structure and writing is a concern"

We agree. This has been addressed in the arXiv version which has much cleaner structure and writing, including improved section on related work.

关于论述不清的回复

B. Apologies for being unclear in these parts of our paper, we address the individual points below, and will be more explicit on all of these in the full version.

小错误

\4. A list of minor typos.
Corrected.

关键问题必须反驳*

For Section 2.3, there may be some misunderstanding. The reviewer is correct that a simple alternative to our approach would be to run MAP on the latent variables, and then hold the latent variables S fixed and Bayesian melding method on the model variables when fixing the latent variables. However, this is computationally expensive and does not scale to high dimensions, as the previous Bayesian melding method requires performing density estimation for the distribution tau. Instead we propose an approximate joint prior in Section 3, which allows us to infer the latent variables and model parameters jointly. Thus our algorithm scales better than the original Bayesian melding algorithm.

关于缺失引用的回复

R4 Missing citations

Note that we do cite as [17] and discuss the work by Parks et al in L090-100. We further clarify the distinctions below. We will include the work by Demirkus et al in the next version and discuss head pose estimation below.

Thank you for the references, which are now included in the current draft.

然而并没有拉回这一票，显然这个评委（Reviewer_7）意见很大 nips28/reviews/1985.html

Thanks for pointing out some valuable related work. The first two works do not consider any feature and instead consider the noise that occurs in observations. The third work is more application oriented using metric learning. Although we also demonstrate our model on a similar application - semi-supervised clustering, our work aims to provide a more general treatment to noisy features on matrix completion. In addition, their "uncertain side information" in fact corresponds to similar/dissimilar information between items in semi-supervised clustering, which means the uncertainty they consider is also on observations, while the noise we consider is on features. We are happy to include these related work in our final submission.

To Reviewer 8

\1. This paper lacks the references for some related recent works (e.g. [1, Nesterov 2015] and [2, Lan 2014]).

We have included Lan's conditional gradient sliding paper in the reference [14], which we believe is more relevant than [2].

We will include [1] in the final version.

\3. We thank the reviewer for mentioning the papers of Burer and Monteiro (2005) and Lee and Bresler (2009). Both papers are certainly relevant related work, and should be discussed. The Burer and Monteiro (B&M) paper (with which we were previously familiar but neglected to cite) is important, and gives a helpful traceback of the factorization and nonconvex optimization idea in the optimization literature. While related, our algorithm and analysis are substantially different than these works. Essentially, B&M target the general semidefinite programming problem and have a more complex set of first order techniques for nonconvex optimization (BFGS and augmented Lagrangian techniques, etc.) It would not be easy to do a direct numerical comparison; but we would expect our methods to perform comparably. In contrast, our method is clean and simple, targets a more limited class of problems, and correspondingly allows us to obtain a strong theoretical convergence analysis (the pesky extra factor of r notwithstanding). As stated by Burer and Monteiro (2003) "Although we are able to derive some amount of theoretical justification for [global convergence], our belief that the method is not strongly affected by the inherent nonconvexity [of the objective function] is largely experimental." We hope that our work will contribute to and help spur the further development of this important class of techniques.

尾句模板

We apologize for not clarifying all questions given the limited space and many reviews. We will fix all typos and add missing references in the next revision.

We will address all remaining minor suggestions in the final revision

We will thoroughly check and fix grammatical errors in the final submission.

完整案例

评委是如何进行review NIPS2013 审稿指南
非常好的评价，没必要rebuttal了，比如这个
该页面给出的接收论文的rebuttal列表是按照id号排列的，不是比分
Rebuttal 成功的案例 (支持者/总评委数)
原文https://blog.csdn.net/atytjmt/article/details/89878772

Patterns for writing good rebuttals

原文 https://www.cnblogs.com/baidut/p/6375371.html

I compiled the following patterns for rebuttals (also known as author clarifications) for major software engineering conferences (ICSE, ESEC, FSE, ASE, ISSTA), having seen a number of rebuttals as PC chair of ESEC/FSE 2011 and having written a number of rebuttals for top conferences. These patterns may or may not be applicable in your context; use at your own risk.

Understand the decision process.

Most SE conferences apply a process called Identify the Champion. Carefully read these process patterns, understanding the roles of the reviewers and the PC chair, and where your rebuttal can make a difference.

Identify the undecided.

These are reviewers who may be swayed by your arguments. You can identify them (a) by generally liking your paper, but not the details, (b) because they provide their scores, or (c) because they explicitly state that they may be swayed. Focus your arguments on these reviewers. (And if you ever become a PC chair: include scores in the reviews, such that your authors know whom to focus upon.)

Identify the champion.

The champion likes your paper anyway, so don't bother too much with her review. If there's no potential champion, chances of getting your paper accepted are slim.

Arm the champion.

In the final discussion, your champion will need arguments against the detractors, especially strong detractors. Refute every single issue raised by the detractors to give your champion extra arguments for acceptance. Lower the confidence in the detractors' reviews by pointing out mistakes.

Identify the detractors.

A strong detractor can only be countered by a strong champion. Rather than trying to dissuade a strong detractor, your aim should be on arming the champion (see above).

Answer the questions.

Some conferences want you to only answer the specific questions the reviewers have asked, and/or instruct their PC members to only focus on these answers. Try to relate every argument of yours to a specific question.

Write for the PC chair.

If your reviewers have done a bad job, say so in the beginning, and the PC chair may assign you another reviewer. Stick to facts (review is just one paragraph, reviewer claims "no Foo" when Section 3 is named "All about Foo", etc.) that the PC chair can check in less than a minute. If a reviewer completely misunderstood the paper, feel free to report this, but keep in mind it is your duty to ensure even a casual reader gets the message. If all reviewers misunderstood your paper, the problem is not the reviewers.

Write for the committee.

When your paper is discussed during the PC meeting, reviewers will glance through the reviews, and also read your rebuttal. If there's one thing you want the committee to know, say so in the very beginning (because that's all most reviewers will read). This assumes that your paper will be discussed, so focus on getting it discussed first.

Convince.

Convince the reviewers that you'll be able to improve the paper. If the reviewer asks: "Do you have a formal definition of Foo?", don't say "Yes". But don't say "Thanks! We'll add this." either. Say "A Foo is a Bar within a Qux range; we'll add a detailed definition." You don't need to provide the full change; just sketch the change you will make.

Choose comments wisely.

Focus on major concerns - the ones where the reviewer assumes you may not be able to improve the paper. You do not need to convince the reviewer that you're able to fix typos, straight-forward presentation issues, language issues, or anything else that can be fixed by simple proofreading. This is taken for granted.

Organize your rebuttal.

Make it easy for reviewers to find their questions (and your arguments). Refer to reviewers by R1, R2, ...; questions by R1Q1, R1Q2, ... Use bullet points and short sentences to allow for quick scanning. Start with the most important and most common concerns, going down towards lesser issues.

No tricks.

If the limit is 500 words, do_not_trick_the_process by_replacing_spaces_with_underscores or likewise; all that will happen is that the PC chair will delete your rebuttal. If it's 2500 characters, do not assume that reviewers KAAYAYA and AYP because they FSITPOG (know all about you and your acronyms and accept your paper because they feel stupid in the presence of genius).

Thank the reviewers.

A rebuttal is not a place to vent off your fumes, even though your work is so great and the reviewers are all so stupid. Reviewing is hard work and even the least significant review contains grains of truth which will be helpful for your future work.

Don't expect too much.

Your rebuttal will not save your paper. Your rebuttal will play a role only if your paper is on the edge, or if reviewers made very obvious mistakes. If the reviewers update their reviews to reply to your arguments, that's already a lot. But regardless of the outcome, your rebuttal will help to improve your paper and eventually get it accepted - if not now, there's always another deadline on the horizon.

Change Log

https://hyunyoungsong.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/how-to-write-a-acm-sigchi-rebuttal/

How to write a ACM sigchi rebuttal

Posted: 2010/12/18 | Author: hyunyoungsong | Filed under: HCI | Tags: CHI, writing |12 Comments

I originally wanted to post this during the SIGCHI rebuttal period. However, I was afraid that it may hurt the acceptance rate of my paper somehow. (Maybe by revealing my identity to the external reviewers? I don’t know. Anything is possible. No?) Hence, I decided to write this immediately after the notification, while everything is still hot in my head. Maybe students that have to write a rebuttal for CHI2012 may find my post useful.

First, I will start by my opinion on why it is difficult to write a convincing rebuttal.

If 90% of writing a paper requires knowing how to explain a research idea and 10% knowing how to convince another researcher, writing a rebuttal requires 10% of the former and 90% of the latter. As a junior researcher (like myself, a graduate student), the only senior researcher you talk to in a daily basis is your advisor. Yet, your advisor is only one sample point among the pool of senior researchers. How on earth would you know how to convince another senior researcher when you do not even know how to initiate a serious conversation with them?

It is always difficult to take criticism. This is especially the case for people like us Ph.D. students who always strive to produce results that are flawless. We seldom hear that our work is a crap in our face. Additionally, the criticism that we have to take in the review seems unjust especially when you believe that the person who’s making the criticism spent maybe a day or two reading a document that you spent endless nights editing over and over again for several months. Some reviewers are actually nasty too. Although it is written in fancy and erudite terms, sometimes the reason that they are rejecting your paper is simply because, “you did not do a good job in impressing me” or “I do not buy your research story”. How would you possibly stay sane when you read these comments?

Despite, many reasons to yell at your reviewers and say, “you are full of s**t~!!”. We should not even express this in any indirect way while writing our rebuttal. In the past, I always had to discard the very first draft that I produced after reading the harsh reviews. My rebuttal was bitter, smirking, cynical and mean. This was not obvious until I slept at least two days crying over it and returned to my calm and reasonable self.

This year, due to my post (in my Korean blog) about my experience in writing a CHI rebuttal in the past years, I’ve been asked by several junior students (outside my institute) to help out in writing their rebuttal. While doing so, there are several tips that I repeated. Here are some of them.

[Understanding and analyzing the review]
Read your reviews with another coauthor and have an in-depth discussion. It is important to address the most important issues first and address only the problems that reviewers raise. Sometimes, I realize that I misunderstood what the reviewer meant and was addressing something that was totally unnecessary. Sometimes, I structured my arguments in the wrong order: order of least importance to most importance. Many authors actually make these mistakes during the writing process, not because they are careless, but because the reviews are somewhat encrypted. Not all of them are kind enough to tell us “A is unconvincing and A’ is my opinion. B and C are what I do not understand but authors should only address B because C is not as important”. It comes more like this, “A is weird, B is weird, C is weird”. Usually, meta-reviewer tries help us by decrypting the dialect of the external reviewers so that the authors are not at a loss. However, not all meta-reviewer are nice either. For this reason, I always talk with my advisor or one of my coauthors for 2~3 hours about the reviews before writing anything. This usually helps a lot.

[Writing process]
Agree with your reviewers. Last year, one of the rebuttal of the paper that I reviewed basically stated that “R1 (myself) is wrong because so and so, and our paper is awesome”. This rebuttal didn’t acknowledge some of the important problems that I pointed out and tried to challenge my judgement. I was offended and became more strict in finding faults of the paper during the discussion period. This is the last thing that the authors want. Making an enemy among the reviewers. To make an ally, you have to tell them how useful their feedbacks are and you have to sincerely mean it too.

Specify how the camera ready version will be reflected based on the reviewer’s request. Often, there are rebuttals that just say, “I understand R2’s point”. This is only half-baked response. The goal of the rebuttal is to demonstrate how the camera ready version will be changed according to the issues raised. Hence, the response should be more specific and go even one step further. Like this: “the question A is raised by R2 because we only explained B in section C when it is also needed in section D. In the camera ready version we will clarify B in section D”

Do not say that the draft will be improved with a major change. I have seen several authors that say in their rebuttal “After the submission we did A,B, and C which addresses all of R1,R2, R3 questions which will be updated in the final draft”. This approach is very bad. First, you are admitting that current draft has many issues. Second, during the PC meeting, papers are discussed “as is”. If it is concluded in the PC meeting that the paper requires major revision, PC members advise that it should be submitted to a future venue. Better approach is to figure out what reviewers misunderstood. Explain why there was a miscommunication and offer ways for reviewers to solve those misunderstandings. Point to a paragraph or a figure in the paper. If needed, direct them to a reference that is not cited in your paper. This is what a rebuttal is for; to clarify.

[Formatting and Style]
Although 5000 characters limit may seem insufficient to explain everything, do not hesitate to allocate some of those characters in white spaces and phrases such as (in response to R1, as mentioned by R2, in our RELATED WORK section, in p8~9). At a glance, they want to see which major raised points have been addressed and which part of the paper they should read again. Sometimes, I use the web browser search tool (namely Ctrl+F) to locate my reviewer id (RX) in the rebuttal and read the accompanying paragraph more carefully to make sure that I didn’t miss anything.

Last but not least, write short and direct sentences. Any sentence that you write to explain in your rebuttal have 50/50 chance of helping your paper and hurting your paper. The longer and indirect a sentence, the higher chance of mis-interpretation. On top of that, reviewers have very short attention span. If sentence become convoluted, they will read what they think the sentence is saying as opposed to what the sentence is actually saying.

The biggest question behind all this is, “Does reviewers actually change their score after reading a rebuttal?”.

And the answer is “YES”~!!. Among the 7 papers that I reviewed this year, I increased the score by 0.5 in one paper because I was happy to learn something that I didn’t know from the rebuttal. Among my 4 papers (2 in previous years and 2 in current year) that have been accepted, 3 paper scores actually increased (by +0.4, +0.1, +0.4) after the rebuttal period.

Although it is painful and tedious process to write a good rebuttal, it is very rewarding once you DO write a good one.

如何有效回复审稿人的意见相关推荐

如何回复SCI审稿人评审意见（response letter）
如何高效地回复审稿意见?(上) 如何高效地回复审稿意见?(中) 如何高效地回复审稿意见?(下) 如何高效回复审稿人意见(附实例) 如何高效的回复审稿人意见? 如何正确回复审稿意见(附模板) 如何有效回 ...
不知道如何回复审稿人意见？回复模板来了！
千盼万盼好不容易修回来了,一看意见 30-40条,直接崩溃! 当拿到审稿意见时,千万不要气馁,因为一次性被录用的概率太低了,所以我们要做的事就是: 不断修改论文不断修改论文不断修改论文然后写好& ...
速收藏！回复审稿人意见时常用的英文套话
拿到审稿意见时... 下面收集了一些回复审稿人意见时常用的套话,赶紧收藏!(搬运工具人.gif) 一些回复的模板模板1 Dear prof. XX and dear reviewers Re: Ma ...
回复审稿人意见——硕士期间我De第一篇SCI
2019年4月1日,我正式接触硕士期间的研究课题--用深度学习研究轴承故障诊断. 滚动轴承作为机械设备的易损部件,其健康状态对整个机械设备的性能.稳定性及使用寿命有着巨大影响.建立稳定可靠的实时故障诊 ...
【论文写作】-我的第一篇论文形成记(投稿过程、课题来源、python与数学学习、实验设计、论文思路建立与写作、回复审稿人)
我的第一篇论文形成记投稿过程背景记录课题来源-本科毕业设计 python及数学学习实验设计调参阶段实验阶段论文思路建立论文写作回复审稿人总结投稿过程 2022年12月28日投A ...
IEEE access投稿及注意事项(初稿，回复审稿人，终稿)
本博客是对自己 IEEE access 投稿从投稿到接收整个流程的记录.每个阶段可能遇到的问题都在本文中有说明,希望大家多多支持. 整体流程:投稿->收到审稿人回复->修改后重投-> ...
SCI投稿经验(三) 回复审稿人
个人觉得在投稿过程中,审稿人对文章的看法是非常重要的.而如何给审稿人留下好印象,就非常考验回复审稿人的技巧与方法了.因为既然文章已经送到审稿人手中,至少在编辑眼中暂时还是认可你的文章有在其期刊发表的潜 ...
如何正确回复审稿人：标准的Response to reviewer
在审稿意见回来之后,如何写一份标准的Response to reviewer!这篇Response to reviewer是投稿到International Journal of Pharmaceut ...
【SCI 投稿全过程英文信件模板（Cover letter、催稿信、修改稿Cover letter、修改稿回答审稿人的意见、询问校稿信件、文章校稿信件）】
SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览一.最初投稿Cover letter 二.催稿信三.修改稿Cover letter 四.修改稿回答审稿人的意见(最重要的部分) 六.询问校稿信件(如果文章接受后时间较 ...
如何回复审稿人问题？
有的时候,你觉得审稿人问的都是××问题,比如,为什么不加这个技术的比较,为什么不考虑这个因素,最后来一句,请加上仿真和实验,如果能加后面就不用看了,但很多情况是,此时的你根本不想加(懂得都懂,写过论文 ...

如何有效回复审稿人的意见

一，如何有效回复审稿人的意见

模板

三审稿人这些意见怎么回复？

四如何回复审稿意见相关不错的博文

Patterns for writing good rebuttals

Change Log

How to write a ACM sigchi rebuttal

如何有效回复审稿人的意见相关推荐

最新文章

热门文章

如何有效回复审稿人的意见

一， 如何有效回复审稿人的意见

模板

三 审稿人这些意见怎么回复 ？

四 如何回复审稿意见相关不错的博文

Patterns for writing good rebuttals

Change Log

How to write a ACM sigchi rebuttal

如何有效回复审稿人的意见相关推荐

最新文章

热门文章

一，如何有效回复审稿人的意见

三审稿人这些意见怎么回复？

四如何回复审稿意见相关不错的博文