Talk:Author Responses (Rebuttals)

From Health of Conferences Committee

(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 20:02, 28 February 2006
MarkDHill (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 20:06, 28 February 2006
MarkDHill (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 10: Line 10:
'''SIGARCH''' '''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.+:Yes. I think the author rebuttals are very important, since the ISCA acceptance ratio is less than that of many journals. ...
== Discussion Begins == == Discussion Begins ==

Revision as of 20:06, 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. ...


Discussion Begins