first commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,429 @@
|
||||
# Review Response and Rebuttal Strategies
|
||||
|
||||
This file contains effective strategies for responding to reviewer comments and addressing reviewer concerns, extracted from successful ML conference paper rebuttals.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## General Rebuttal Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### Core Philosophy
|
||||
**Source:** Analysis of successful NeurIPS/ICML rebuttals
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Principles:**
|
||||
1. **Respectful tone**: Thank reviewers for their time
|
||||
2. **Direct addressing**: Respond point-by-point to each concern
|
||||
3. **Evidence-based**: Support claims with data, experiments, or citations
|
||||
4. **Concise communication**: Be clear but brief
|
||||
5. **No over-committing**: Only promise what can be done
|
||||
|
||||
### Response Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Response to Reviewer [Number]
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you for this insightful comment. We [address the concern].
|
||||
|
||||
[Specific response to concern].
|
||||
|
||||
[Additional evidence/experiments if needed].
|
||||
|
||||
We have revised the manuscript to clarify this point (see changes marked in blue).
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Addressing Specific Concerns
|
||||
|
||||
### Concern: Clarity Issues
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategy:**
|
||||
- Acknowledge the confusion
|
||||
- Clarify with revised text
|
||||
- Add examples if helpful
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Response to Clarity Concern
|
||||
|
||||
We apologize for the confusion. The original text was:
|
||||
|
||||
[Original unclear text]
|
||||
|
||||
We have revised this to:
|
||||
"Revised text with clearer explanation"
|
||||
|
||||
We also added an example (Figure X) to illustrate this concept.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Real Example:**
|
||||
- **Concern:** "The algorithm description is unclear."
|
||||
- **Response:** "We've rewritten Algorithm 1 with more detailed steps and added pseudocode. We also included a concrete example in Appendix B to illustrate the algorithm's execution."
|
||||
|
||||
### Concern: Missing Experiments
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategy:**
|
||||
- Assess whether experiment is feasible
|
||||
- If yes: add experiment and report results
|
||||
- If not: explain why experiment is not essential
|
||||
- Offer alternative evidence if possible
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Response to Missing Experiment Request
|
||||
|
||||
We agree that [experiment] would strengthen the evaluation. We have:
|
||||
[Option 1: Added experiment and results]
|
||||
OR
|
||||
[Option 2: Explained why not essential with alternative evidence]
|
||||
|
||||
We believe this addresses the concern while maintaining focus on our core contribution.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Real Example:**
|
||||
- **Concern:** "Add comparison with Method X on dataset Y."
|
||||
- **Response:** "We've added results on dataset Y (Table 3). Our method outperforms Method X by 5%. We also include ablation showing our improvement comes from [feature], not just better optimization."
|
||||
|
||||
### Concern: Statistical Significance
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategy:**
|
||||
- Add statistical tests if appropriate
|
||||
- Report confidence intervals
|
||||
- Discuss practical significance vs statistical significance
|
||||
- Note sample size limitations
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Response to Statistical Significance
|
||||
|
||||
We agree statistical testing is important. We have:
|
||||
- Added paired t-test results showing significance (p<0.01)
|
||||
- Included 95% confidence intervals in Figure 3
|
||||
- Reported standard deviations across 5 runs
|
||||
- Noted that while some differences are not statistically significant due to sample size, they are practically meaningful for [application]
|
||||
|
||||
We have updated Section 4.2 with these statistical details.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Concern: Insufficient Baselines
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategy:**
|
||||
- Add missing baselines if available
|
||||
- Explain why certain baselines are inappropriate
|
||||
- Cite reasons for exclusions with references
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Response to Baseline Concern
|
||||
|
||||
We have added comparisons with:
|
||||
- [Method A]: Added in Table 2
|
||||
- [Method B]: Excluded because [reason with citation]
|
||||
|
||||
For Method B, while it seems related, it [specific reason why not comparable], making direct comparison inappropriate.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Concern: Writing Quality
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategy:**
|
||||
- Revise problematic text
|
||||
- Fix grammatical issues
|
||||
- Improve flow and clarity
|
||||
- Add signposting
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Response to Writing Concern
|
||||
|
||||
We've revised the writing to address your concerns:
|
||||
- Restructured Section 3 for better flow
|
||||
- Fixed typos and grammar
|
||||
- Added transition sentences between paragraphs
|
||||
- Clarified technical terminology
|
||||
|
||||
The revised manuscript has been proofread and edited for clarity.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Concern: Overclaiming
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategy:**
|
||||
- Tone down absolute statements
|
||||
- Add qualifications where appropriate
|
||||
- Acknowledge limitations more explicitly
|
||||
- Reframe claims to match evidence
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Response to Overclaiming Concern
|
||||
|
||||
We accept that our original claim was too strong. We have revised the text:
|
||||
|
||||
Original: "Our method achieves state-of-the-art on all tasks."
|
||||
Revised: "Our method achieves state-of-the-art on [specific tasks] and competitive performance on [other tasks]."
|
||||
|
||||
We also added a Limitations section acknowledging that our method may not generalize to [condition].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tone and Phrasing Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### Opening Statements
|
||||
|
||||
**Thanking:**
|
||||
- "Thank you for this insightful comment."
|
||||
- "We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to..."
|
||||
- "We thank the reviewer for pointing this out."
|
||||
|
||||
**Acknowledging Valid Points:**
|
||||
- "The reviewer is right that..."
|
||||
- "We agree this is a limitation."
|
||||
- "This is an excellent suggestion."
|
||||
|
||||
### Addressing Disagreements
|
||||
|
||||
**Respectful Disagreement:**
|
||||
- "We respectfully disagree with this assessment based on..."
|
||||
- "While we understand the concern, our results suggest..."
|
||||
- "We believe our approach is justified because..."
|
||||
|
||||
**Providing Evidence:**
|
||||
- "Our experimental results (Table 3) show..."
|
||||
- "As shown in Figure 4, the difference is..."
|
||||
- "This is supported by prior work [Citation]."
|
||||
|
||||
### Making Commitments
|
||||
|
||||
**Full Commitments:**
|
||||
- "We will add this experiment in the revised version."
|
||||
- "We have added additional ablation studies in Section 5."
|
||||
|
||||
**Partial Commitments:**
|
||||
- "We have added clarification in the appendix due to space constraints."
|
||||
- "We've expanded discussion of this point in the revision."
|
||||
|
||||
**Declining Requests:**
|
||||
- "Unfortunately, due to [constraint], we cannot add this experiment."
|
||||
- "This would require substantial additional resources beyond our current scope."
|
||||
- "We believe this is beyond the scope of the current paper but note it as future work."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Rebuttal Strategies
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy: Organized Response
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Summary of Changes
|
||||
|
||||
We thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. In this response, we:
|
||||
- [Major change 1]
|
||||
- [Major change 2]
|
||||
- [Improvement 3]
|
||||
|
||||
We believe these changes have significantly strengthened the paper.
|
||||
|
||||
# Response to Reviewer 1
|
||||
|
||||
[Point-by-point responses]
|
||||
|
||||
# Response to Reviewer 2
|
||||
|
||||
[Point-by-point responses]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy: Evidence-Based Arguments
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Response to Technical Concern
|
||||
|
||||
Our approach is valid because:
|
||||
1. [Reason 1 with reference/evidence]
|
||||
2. [Reason 2 with data/figure]
|
||||
3. [Reason 3 with theoretical justification]
|
||||
|
||||
This is supported by [Citation], which demonstrates that [fact].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy: Highlighting Improvements
|
||||
|
||||
**Template:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Major Revisions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **New Experiments**: Added comparison with [method] on [dataset]
|
||||
2. **New Analysis**: Included ablation study in Table 4
|
||||
3. **Clarified Writing**: Rewrote Section 3 for clarity
|
||||
4. **Added Limitations**: New section 5.2 acknowledging constraints
|
||||
|
||||
These additions strengthen our core claims about [contribution].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Venue-Specific Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### NeurIPS
|
||||
|
||||
**Emphasis:**
|
||||
- Novelty and conceptual contribution
|
||||
- Broader impact (lay summary)
|
||||
- Reproducibility checklist
|
||||
|
||||
**Rebuttal Focus:**
|
||||
- How work advances understanding
|
||||
- Significance of contribution
|
||||
- Ethical considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### ICML
|
||||
|
||||
**Emphasis:**
|
||||
- Methodological rigor
|
||||
- Theoretical contributions
|
||||
- Broader impact statement
|
||||
|
||||
**Rebuttal Focus:**
|
||||
- Soundness of methods
|
||||
- Theoretical guarantees
|
||||
- Practical implications
|
||||
|
||||
### ICLR
|
||||
|
||||
**Emphasis:**
|
||||
- Experimental thoroughness
|
||||
- Limitations acknowledgment
|
||||
- LLM usage disclosure
|
||||
|
||||
**Rebuttal Focus:**
|
||||
- Comprehensive evaluation
|
||||
- Honest limitation discussion
|
||||
- Transparency about methods
|
||||
|
||||
### ACL
|
||||
|
||||
**Emphasis:**
|
||||
- Linguistic appropriateness
|
||||
- Ethical considerations
|
||||
- Clear limitations
|
||||
|
||||
**Rebuttal Focus:**
|
||||
- Language quality and appropriateness
|
||||
- Data provenance and ethics
|
||||
- Practical utility
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tips for Successful Rebuttals
|
||||
|
||||
### Before Writing
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Understand the concerns**: Read carefully, identify key issues
|
||||
2. **Prioritize**: Address major concerns first
|
||||
3. **Be realistic**: Only promise what can deliver
|
||||
4. **Gather evidence**: Collect data, results, citations
|
||||
5. **Coordinate**: Discuss with co-authors if applicable
|
||||
|
||||
### While Writing
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Be specific**: Reference exact sections, figures, tables
|
||||
2. **Be concise**: Keep responses focused and brief
|
||||
3. **Be respectful**: Thank reviewers, acknowledge good points
|
||||
4. **Be confident**: Defend your work appropriately
|
||||
5. **Be honest**: Acknowledge limitations, don't overpromise
|
||||
|
||||
### Common Mistakes to Avoid
|
||||
|
||||
- **Defensive tone**: Don't argue excessively
|
||||
- **Vague responses**: Be specific about changes
|
||||
- **Ignoring concerns**: Address every point
|
||||
- **Over-promising**: Only commit to feasible additions
|
||||
- **Disorganized:**
|
||||
- **Poor formatting:** Use clear sections and structure
|
||||
- **Rude language:** Maintain professional tone
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Rebuttal Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 1: Clarity Concern
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer:** "The method description in Section 3 is unclear and hard to follow."
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
We apologize for the confusion. We have rewritten Section 3.2 to clarify our algorithm:
|
||||
|
||||
**Original:** "We process the data using our method and get results."
|
||||
|
||||
**Revised:** "Our method consists of three stages: (1) We first normalize the input
|
||||
features using [technique]. (2) We then apply our core algorithm, which iteratively [process].
|
||||
(3) Finally, we post-process the outputs using [method]."
|
||||
|
||||
We also added Algorithm 1 with detailed steps and included a concrete example in
|
||||
Appendix A. We believe this revision makes the method reproducible and clear.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 2: Missing Baseline
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer:** "You should compare with Method X (Smith et al., 2022)."
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added comparisons with Method X in our
|
||||
revised manuscript:
|
||||
|
||||
**Results in Table 3:** Our method achieves 92% accuracy compared to Method X's
|
||||
85% on dataset Y. This 7% improvement demonstrates the value of our [key innovation].
|
||||
|
||||
**Ablation Study:** We show in Table 4 that our improvement comes specifically from
|
||||
[feature], not just better optimization.
|
||||
|
||||
We chose not to include Method Z because [reason with citation].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 3: Overclaiming
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer:** "The abstract claims 'state-of-the-art' too broadly."
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
We accept this critique. Our original claim was too broad. We have revised the
|
||||
abstract:
|
||||
|
||||
**Original:** "Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance across all tasks."
|
||||
|
||||
**Revised:** "Our method achieves state-of-the-art on [specific tasks A and B] (Table 1)
|
||||
and competitive performance on [other tasks C and D] (Table 2)."
|
||||
|
||||
We also added a Limitations section (Section 5) noting that performance may vary
|
||||
across domains and tasks.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before submitting rebuttal:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] All reviewer concerns addressed
|
||||
- [ ] Responses are clear and specific
|
||||
- [ ] Tone is respectful and professional
|
||||
- [ ] Changes are marked in manuscript
|
||||
- [ ] Evidence provided for claims
|
||||
- [ ] Feasible commitments made
|
||||
- [ ] Co-authors agree with responses
|
||||
- [ ] Proofread for errors
|
||||
- [ ] Check formatting requirements
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- **Learn from successful rebuttals**: Read well-received papers' reviewer exchanges
|
||||
- **Practice humility**: Acknowledge mistakes, show willingness to improve
|
||||
- **Focus on core contribution**: Defend your main contribution without overclaiming
|
||||
- **Keep it concise**: Reviewers are busy; be respectful of their time
|
||||
|
||||
**Updates:** This file is periodically updated with new strategies and examples from successful rebuttals.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user