Talk:Author Responses (Rebuttals)
From Health of Conferences Committee
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 19:48, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 20:02, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| == Starting Comments == | == Starting Comments == | ||
| - | qqq | + | The idea is to allow authors to provide the program committee a (short) response addressing reviewer concerns. |
| - | qqq | ||
| - | qqq | + | '''SIGARCH''' |
| + | :Yes. I think the author rebuttals are very important, since the ISCA acceptance ratio is less than that of many journals. I am also a strong believer in double blind submissions, as it creates a more level playing field for new professors and authors from smaller institutions. | ||
| + | |||
| == Discussion Begins == | == Discussion Begins == | ||
Revision as of 20:02, 28 February 2006
To add your comment to this discussion, please click the + sign tab above. Like an email message, you can then contribute:
- a subject (use subject Re: FOO to continue a discussion of FOO)
- message body
- (optionally) your name.
Starting Comments
The idea is to allow authors to provide the program committee a (short) response addressing reviewer concerns.
SIGARCH
- Yes. I think the author rebuttals are very important, since the ISCA acceptance ratio is less than that of many journals. I am also a strong believer in double blind submissions, as it creates a more level playing field for new professors and authors from smaller institutions.
