How To Write Better Rebuttal

Typical Review and Acceptance Process of a Computer Science Conference

1. Submission Phase

   • Authors submit their manuscripts by the conference deadline.
   • Submissions are checked for compliance with formatting and anonymity guidelines.

2. Initial Screening

   • Papers may undergo a desk review to filter out those that are out of scope or significantly below standard.

3. Reviewer Assignment

   • Program Committee (PC) chairs assign papers to reviewers based on expertise.
   • Each paper typically receives reviews from 3-5 experts.

4. Review Phase

   • Reviewers evaluate the paper on originality, significance, methodology, clarity, and relevance.
   • They provide scores (e.g., accept, weak accept, borderline, weak reject, reject) and detailed comments.

5. Rebuttal Phase (if applicable)

   • Authors are given a chance to respond to reviewer comments.
   • The rebuttal is usually brief (one to two pages) and should address reviewers' concerns without adding new research results.

6. Discussion and Decision

   • Reviewers discuss the paper, considering the rebuttal.
   • The PC meets to make final decisions based on reviews and discussions.
   • Acceptance rates vary but are often competitive.

7. Notification

   • Authors are informed of the decision.
   • Accepted papers may require revisions based on reviewer feedback.

Guidelines for Writing an Effective Rebuttal

1. Read Reviews Carefully

   • Understand each reviewer’s concerns.
   • Identify common themes and prioritize critical issues.

2. Organize Your Response

   • Thank the Reviewers: Begin by expressing gratitude for their time and constructive feedback.
   • Address Common Concerns First: Tackle issues raised by multiple reviewers to show you've acknowledged the most significant points.
   • Respond to Individual Comments: Address specific points raised by each reviewer separately.

3. Be Clear and Concise

   • Write in a professional and respectful tone.
   • Keep responses focused and avoid unnecessary details.
   • Use bullet points or numbered lists for clarity.

4. Clarify Misunderstandings

   • If reviewers misunderstood certain aspects, provide clear explanations.
   • Reference specific sections or figures in your paper when relevant.

5. Avoid Introducing New Material

   • Do not include new results or significant changes.
   • Focus on explaining and elaborating on existing content.

6. Highlight Strengths in Response

   • Reinforce the contributions and significance of your work while addressing concerns.
   • Show confidence but remain humble and open to feedback.

7. Prioritize Key Reviewer

   • Pay special attention to the reviewer with the highest expertise or the most critical review.
   • A well-addressed rebuttal may sway their opinion from a weak reject to a weak accept.

Applying These Guidelines to Your Rebuttal

• Acknowledge and Thank:

  • "We thank all the reviewers for their valuable comments and insights."

• Addressing Common Concerns:

  • Example: "Several reviewers mentioned the complexity of running real-world eBPF control plane applications without modifications. We agree and would like to clarify that our approach addresses this by adopting bpftime in uXDP, simplifying the process significantly..."

• Responding to Individual Reviewers:

  • Reviewer 1:
    • Concern: "The evaluation lacks diversity in network functions."
    • Response: "We acknowledge the need for a broader evaluation. Our current study includes tcpdump and httpdump as examples, which require numerous syscalls and commands. We chose these due to their complexity and relevance..."

• Final Touches:

  • Ensure that your rebuttal directly maps responses to the reviewers' comments.
  • Proofread for clarity and professionalism.
  • Respect the page or word limit set by the conference.

Conclusion

Crafting an effective rebuttal is crucial in the review process. By systematically addressing the reviewers' concerns with clarity and professionalism, you improve the chances of your paper's acceptance. Focus on clarifying misunderstandings and reinforcing the value of your contributions without introducing new material.