Talk:Author Responses (Rebuttals)

From Health of Conferences Committee

Revision as of 16:57, 8 March 2006; view current revision
←Older revision | Newer revision→

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.


Yes. I think the author rebuttals are very important, since the ISCA acceptance ratio is less than that of many journals. ...


No organized rebuttal process.


Rebuttals have been used at SIGGRAPH since 2003. Reviews are made available to authors before the papers committee meets. Authors are given the chance to correct factual errors or misinterpretations in the reviews. In some cases this has likely led to a different outcome.(Note that there is an error in the survey, where it says that SIGGRAPH does not reconsider decisions based on rebuttals.) In general, authors have been happy to have some recourse when they get reviews that they consider inaccurate or uninformed. The details of the process are still being tweaked: major issues include having a limit on the length of a rebuttal, and inclusion of new material not in the original paper in a rebuttal.

Discussion Begins