Review Response

Review Response

A systematic review response workflow that helps researchers efficiently and professionally reply to reviewer comments.

Core Features

1. Review Analysis - Parse and classify reviewer comments (Major/Minor/Typo/Misunderstanding) 2. Response Strategy - Develop response strategies for different comment types (Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment) 3. Rebuttal Writing - Write structured, professional rebuttal documents 4. Tone Management - Optimize tone to maintain professionalism, respect, and evidence-based arguments

Workflow

Receive reviewer comments -> Parse and classify -> Develop strategy -> Write responses -> Tone check -> Final rebuttal

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to:

• "Help me write a rebuttal"
• "How to respond to reviewer comments"
• "Analyze these review comments"
• "Develop a review response strategy"

Usage Steps

1. Provide reviewer comments - Share the reviewer comments text or file with Claude 2. Analysis and classification - Claude automatically parses and classifies the comments 3. Strategy recommendations - Receive response strategy suggestions for each comment 4. Write rebuttal - Generate a structured rebuttal document based on the strategy 5. Optimize tone - Review and optimize the professionalism and politeness of responses

Core Principles

• Professionalism - Maintain an academically professional tone and expression
• Respectfulness - Respect the reviewers' opinions and time
• Evidence-based - Support every response with sufficient reasoning and evidence
• Completeness - Ensure all reviewer comments receive a response

Success Factors (Based on ICLR Spotlight Paper Analysis)

Key lessons extracted from successful rebuttal cases:

1. Acknowledge Strengths, Respond Positively to Criticism

• Reviewers will first acknowledge the paper's strengths (novelty, impact, practical applicability)
• Even spotlight papers receive constructive criticism
• Strategy: Thank reviewers for acknowledged strengths first, then address criticism specifically

2. Provide Clarity and Intuitive Understanding

• Even high-quality papers may have clarity issues
• Need to provide intuition and detailed explanations for readers with different backgrounds
• Strategy: Expand key sections, move technical details to appendix, add step-by-step walkthroughs

3. Thorough Justification of Experimental Setup

• Need to justify experimental setup choices
• Consider and discuss alternative metrics
• Provide comprehensive experiments to support claims
• Strategy: Add ablation studies, explain why specific experimental setups were chosen

4. Emphasis on Ethical Considerations

• For research involving privacy, security, and other sensitive topics, ethical considerations are crucial
• Reviewers pay special attention to ethical implications
• Strategy: Proactively discuss ethical considerations, even if reviewers don't explicitly request it

5. Highlight Practical Application Value

• Reviewers value practical applicability and scalability of methods
• "Easily applicable" and "scalable" are important strengths
• Strategy: Emphasize practical benefits and scalability in the rebuttal

Integration with active installed writing memory

When the rebuttal task involves:

• tone calibration,
• rebuttal phrasing,
• clarification language,
• structuring multi-point responses,
• or learning from strong prior paper/review writing,

read the active installed writing memory before drafting:

• ~/.claude/skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/paper-miner-writing-memory.md on Claude Code installs
• the equivalent installed skill-home path on Codex/OpenCode branches
• otherwise skip this optional memory and continue with the local review-response references

Default read order for rebuttal work

1. reviewer comments and paper context 2. optional paper-miner-writing-memory.md if available 3. references/response-strategies.md 4. references/rebuttal-templates.md 5. references/tone-guidelines.md

Read narrowly:

• start with How this helps our writing,
• then inspect Reusable phrasing,
• then inspect Venue-specific signals if the rebuttal is venue-sensitive,
• use Writing patterns mined only when the response needs stronger rhetorical structure.

Do not quote the memory mechanically. Use it to improve structure, clarity, restraint, and professionalism.

Evidence anchor rule

Every response row must include one of:

• paper location,
• result table / figure / analysis artifact,
• citation / Evidence Record ID,
• planned experiment with status,
• unresolved if no evidence exists yet.

Do not claim "we added experiments" or "the results show" without naming the artifact. If an objection has multiple atomic points, split it and cover each point separately.

Reference Documents

For detailed guides, refer to:

• references/review-classification.md - Review comment classification criteria
• references/response-strategies.md - Response strategy library
• references/rebuttal-templates.md - Rebuttal templates and examples
• references/tone-guidelines.md - Tone and expression guidelines

Related Tools

• Agent: rebuttal-writer - Dedicated agent for rebuttal writing and optimization
• Command: /rebuttal <review_file> - Quick-start the rebuttal workflow

Rebuttal 模板库

本文档提供系统化的rebuttal模板，帮助快速撰写专业、结构清晰的审稿响应。

基本结构

标准Rebuttal结构

# Response to Reviewers

We sincerely thank all reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. We have carefully addressed all comments and made substantial revisions to improve the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each reviewer's comments.

---

## Response to Reviewer 1

### Major Comments

**Comment 1.1**: [审稿人的原始意见]

**Response**: [我们的回复]

**Changes**: [具体修改内容和位置]

---

**Comment 1.2**: [审稿人的原始意见]

**Response**: [我们的回复]

**Changes**: [具体修改内容和位置]

---

### Minor Comments

**Comment 1.3**: [审稿人的原始意见]

**Response**: [我们的回复]

**Changes**: [具体修改内容和位置]

---

## Response to Reviewer 2

[同样的结构]

---

## Response to Reviewer 3

[同样的结构]

---

## Summary of Major Changes

1. [主要修改1]
2. [主要修改2]
3. [主要修改3]

We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers.

---

开场白模板

模板 1: 标准感谢

We sincerely thank all reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. We have carefully addressed all comments and made substantial revisions to improve the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each reviewer's comments.

模板 2: 强调改进

We are grateful to the reviewers for their thorough and insightful comments. Their feedback has helped us significantly improve the quality and clarity of our work. We have made extensive revisions to address all concerns, and we believe the manuscript is now substantially stronger.

模板 3: 突出重点

We thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation and constructive feedback. We have addressed all comments and made major revisions, including [关键改进1], [关键改进2], and [关键改进3]. We provide detailed responses below.

---

回复模板（按策略分类）

Accept 策略模板

模板 1: 简单接受

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have [具体修改]. [修改位置].

模板 2: 接受并扩展

We appreciate this insightful comment. We agree that [问题描述] is important. We have [具体修改1] and [具体修改2]. These changes are reflected in [位置1] and [位置2].

模板 3: 接受拼写/格式错误

We thank the reviewer for catching this. We have corrected [错误类型] throughout the manuscript.

---

Defend 策略模板

模板 1: 礼貌辩护

We appreciate the reviewer's concern. However, we respectfully note that [我们的做法] is motivated by [理由]. Specifically, [详细解释]. We have added this clarification to Section [X].

模板 2: 对比说明

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While [审稿人建议的方法] has advantages in [场景A], we chose [我们的方法] because [理由1] and [理由2]. Our preliminary experiments showed that [实验结果]. We have added this discussion to [位置].

模板 3: 技术限制

We appreciate this suggestion. However, [建议的方法] is not feasible in our setting due to [限制1] and [限制2]. Instead, we [我们的替代方案], which [优势]. We have clarified this in [位置].

---

Clarify 策略模板

模板 1: 礼貌澄清

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We would like to respectfully clarify that [已有内容]. This is discussed in [具体位置]. To make this clearer, we have [改进措施].

模板 2: 指出已有内容

We appreciate this comment. We would like to note that we did [已完成的工作] in our study. Specifically, [详细说明]. These results are presented in [位置]. To make this more prominent, we have [改进措施].

模板 3: 承认表述不清

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We apologize for the confusion. What we meant is [澄清说明]. We have revised [位置] to make this clearer.

---

Experiment 策略模板

模板 1: 已完成实验

We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have conducted additional experiments on [实验内容]. The results show that [主要发现]. Specifically, [详细结果]. These new results have been added to [位置] and discussed in [位置].

模板 2: 承诺进行实验

We appreciate this valuable suggestion. We agree that [实验的重要性]. We are currently conducting [实验内容] and will include the results in the revised manuscript. We expect to complete these experiments within [时间] and will update the manuscript accordingly.

模板 3: 实验不可行但提供替代

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While [建议的实验] would be valuable, it is not feasible due to [限制]. However, we have conducted [替代实验], which provides similar insights. The results show [发现]. These have been added to [位置].

---

特殊场景模板

多个审稿人提出相同意见

模板:

We thank Reviewers [X] and [Y] for raising this important point. We agree that [问题描述]. We have [具体修改]. These changes address both reviewers' concerns and are reflected in [位置].

示例:

We thank Reviewers 1 and 3 for raising this important point about the lack of ablation studies. We agree that ablation studies are crucial for understanding component contributions. We have conducted comprehensive ablation experiments examining [组件1], [组件2], and [组件3]. These changes address both reviewers' concerns and are reflected in Table 4 and Section 4.5.

---

审稿人意见相互矛盾

模板:

We appreciate both reviewers' perspectives on [问题]. Reviewer [X] suggests [建议X], while Reviewer [Y] suggests [建议Y]. After careful consideration, we have [我们的选择] because [理由]. We believe this approach [优势] while addressing [关注点].

示例:

We appreciate both reviewers' perspectives on the dataset choice. Reviewer 1 suggests using dataset A for broader applicability, while Reviewer 2 suggests using dataset B for more controlled evaluation. After careful consideration, we have added experiments on both datasets. We believe this approach provides both breadth (dataset A) and depth (dataset B) while addressing both reviewers' concerns. The new results are presented in Table 5.

---

无法完全满足要求

模板:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While we agree that [建议的价值], [完全实现的困难]. However, we have [部分实现或替代方案], which [效果]. We acknowledge this limitation in [位置] and discuss it as future work.

示例:

We thank the reviewer for suggesting experiments on dataset X. While we agree that this would be valuable, dataset X is not publicly available and requires institutional access that we currently do not have. However, we have conducted experiments on dataset Y, which has similar characteristics and is widely used in the community. The results show [发现]. We acknowledge this limitation in Section 5.3 and discuss experiments on dataset X as future work.

---

结尾模板

单个审稿人的结尾

模板 1: 标准结尾

We hope our responses and revisions have adequately addressed all of your concerns. We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the manuscript significantly.

模板 2: 强调改进

We believe the revisions we have made in response to your comments have substantially strengthened the manuscript. We thank you again for your thorough review and constructive suggestions.

---

整体Rebuttal的结尾

模板 1: 总结主要修改

## Summary of Major Changes

In response to the reviewers' feedback, we have made the following major revisions:

1. [主要修改1] (Reviewers [X, Y])
2. [主要修改2] (Reviewer [Z])
3. [主要修改3] (All reviewers)

We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers. We are grateful for the reviewers' valuable feedback and hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.

模板 2: 强调新增内容

## Summary of Major Changes

We have made substantial revisions to address all reviewers' comments:

**New Experiments**: [新实验描述]
**Expanded Discussions**: [扩展讨论描述]
**Clarifications**: [澄清内容描述]

These changes have improved the manuscript's [质量方面], and we believe it now meets the high standards of [期刊/会议名称].

---

完整Rebuttal示例

示例场景

假设收到3位审稿人的意见：

• Reviewer 1: 2个Major comments, 3个Minor comments
• Reviewer 2: 1个Major comment, 2个Minor comments
• Reviewer 3: 3个Minor comments

完整Rebuttal文档

# Response to Reviewers

We sincerely thank all reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. We have carefully addressed all comments and made substantial revisions to improve the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each reviewer's comments.

---

## Response to Reviewer 1

We thank Reviewer 1 for the thorough review and insightful comments.

### Major Comments

**Comment 1.1**: The paper lacks comparison with recent state-of-the-art method X. This comparison is essential for evaluating the proposed method.

**Response**: We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have conducted additional experiments comparing our method with X on all three datasets. The results show that our method achieves comparable or better performance (Dataset A: +2.3%, Dataset B: +1.1%, Dataset C: -0.5%). 

**Changes**: These new results have been added to Table 3 (page 7) and discussed in Section 4.3 (pages 7-8). We also provide detailed analysis of the performance differences.

---

**Comment 1.2**: The authors should provide more details about the training procedure, including hyperparameters and convergence criteria.

**Response**: We appreciate this comment and agree that more implementation details would be helpful. We have added a comprehensive description of our training procedure.

**Changes**: We have added Section 3.4 "Training Details" (page 5) which includes:
- Complete hyperparameter settings (Table 2)
- Convergence criteria and early stopping strategy
- Training time and computational resources
- Code availability statement


---

### Minor Comments

**Comment 1.3**: There are several typos in Section 2. For example, "recieve" should be "receive" on page 3.

**Response**: We thank the reviewer for catching these errors. We have carefully proofread the entire manuscript and corrected all typos.

**Changes**: All typos have been corrected throughout the manuscript.

---

**Comment 1.4**: Figure 2 is difficult to read. The font size should be increased.

**Response**: We appreciate this feedback. We have improved the figure quality.

**Changes**: Figure 2 has been redesigned with larger fonts and clearer labels (page 6).

---

**Comment 1.5**: The related work section should discuss paper Y, which is highly relevant.

**Response**: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have expanded the related work section to include discussion of paper Y.

**Changes**: We have added a paragraph discussing paper Y in Section 2.2 (page 3) and included it in the comparison table (Table 1).

---

We hope our responses and revisions have adequately addressed all of your concerns. We are grateful for your valuable feedback.


---

## Response to Reviewer 2

We thank Reviewer 2 for the constructive feedback.

### Major Comments

**Comment 2.1**: The authors claim that their method is more efficient than baseline methods, but no runtime analysis is provided. Please add computational complexity analysis and runtime comparisons.

**Response**: We appreciate this important comment. We have added comprehensive efficiency analysis.

**Changes**: We have added Section 4.4 "Efficiency Analysis" (page 8) which includes:
- Theoretical computational complexity analysis (O-notation)
- Runtime comparison with baseline methods (Table 4)
- Memory consumption analysis (Figure 4)
- Discussion of efficiency-performance trade-offs

The results show that our method achieves 3.2x speedup compared to the previous state-of-the-art while maintaining comparable accuracy.

---

### Minor Comments

**Comment 2.2**: The notation in Equation 3 is inconsistent with the rest of the paper.

**Response**: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have standardized the notation throughout the manuscript.

**Changes**: Equation 3 (page 4) has been revised to use consistent notation. We have also added a notation table in the appendix for clarity.

---

**Comment 2.3**: The discussion of limitations is too brief.

**Response**: We agree that a more thorough discussion of limitations would strengthen the paper.

**Changes**: We have expanded Section 5.3 "Limitations and Future Work" (page 10) to include:
- Detailed discussion of current limitations
- Potential failure cases
- Directions for future research

---

We believe the revisions we have made in response to your comments have substantially strengthened the manuscript. Thank you for your thorough review.


---

## Response to Reviewer 3

We thank Reviewer 3 for the careful review and helpful suggestions.

### Minor Comments

**Comment 3.1**: The abstract should be more concise and focus on the key contributions.

**Response**: We appreciate this feedback. We have revised the abstract to be more focused and concise.

**Changes**: The abstract has been rewritten (page 1) to highlight the three key contributions and remove unnecessary details.

---

**Comment 3.2**: Some figures are not referenced in the text.

**Response**: We thank the reviewer for catching this. We have ensured all figures are properly referenced.

**Changes**: We have added references to Figure 5 in Section 4.2 (page 7) and Figure 6 in Section 4.5 (page 9).

---

**Comment 3.3**: The conclusion should discuss broader impact and societal implications.

**Response**: We agree that discussing broader impact is important.

**Changes**: We have added Section 6 "Broader Impact" (page 11) discussing potential societal implications, ethical considerations, and responsible use of our method.

---

We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the manuscript significantly.

---

## Summary of Major Changes

In response to the reviewers' feedback, we have made the following major revisions:

1. **Added comparison with state-of-the-art method X** (Reviewer 1) - New experiments on all datasets, results in Table 3 and Section 4.3

2. **Added comprehensive training details** (Reviewer 1) - New Section 3.4 with hyperparameters, convergence criteria, and code availability

3. **Added efficiency analysis** (Reviewer 2) - New Section 4.4 with complexity analysis, runtime comparisons (Table 4), and memory analysis (Figure 4)

4. **Expanded limitations discussion** (Reviewer 2) - Enhanced Section 5.3 with detailed limitations and future work

5. **Added broader impact section** (Reviewer 3) - New Section 6 discussing societal implications

6. **Improved figures and fixed typos** (Reviewers 1, 3) - Enhanced Figure 2, added figure references, corrected all typos

We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers. We are grateful for the reviewers' valuable feedback and hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication.

---

使用指南

如何使用这些模板

1. 选择合适的结构: 根据审稿人数量和意见复杂度选择基本结构 2. 分类意见: 将每个审稿人的意见分为Major和Minor 3. 选择策略: 根据意见类型选择Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment策略 4. 套用模板: 使用对应策略的模板撰写回复 5. 添加具体内容: 填充模板中的占位符（[具体修改]、[位置]等） 6. 检查一致性: 确保所有回复的语气和格式一致

模板定制建议

根据会议/期刊调整:

• 顶会（NeurIPS, ICML）: 更注重技术细节和实验结果
• 期刊（Nature, Science）: 更注重broader impact和清晰表达
• 领域会议: 根据领域特点调整专业术语

根据审稿轮次调整:

• 第一轮: 更详细的解释和更多的新实验
• 第二轮: 重点回应未解决的问题，简洁明了
• 第三轮: 强调已做的改进，表达合作态度

常见错误

❌ 避免:

• 过于简短的回复（"Done" 或 "Fixed"）
• 没有具体位置引用
• 防御性或攻击性语气
• 承诺无法完成的实验
• 忽略某些意见

✅ 推荐:

• 每个回复都包含Response和Changes两部分
• 提供具体的章节、页码、表格、图表引用
• 保持礼貌和专业的语气
• 只承诺可行的改进
• 回应所有意见，即使是小的typo

审稿响应策略库

本文档提供针对不同类型审稿意见的系统化回复策略，帮助撰写专业、有效的rebuttal。

四大核心策略

1. Accept（接受策略）

适用场景:

• 审稿人指出的确实是问题或不足
• 修改成本低且能改进论文质量
• Typos和格式问题
• 合理的改进建议

回复模板:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have [具体修改行动].

示例:

审稿意见:

"The related work section is too brief and misses several important recent papers."

回复:

"We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have significantly expanded the related work section and added discussions of the suggested papers [X, Y, Z]. The revised section now provides a more comprehensive overview of the field."

---

2. Defend（辩护策略）

适用场景:

• 当前做法有充分理由
• 审稿人的建议不适用于本研究
• 需要解释设计选择的合理性

关键原则:

• 保持礼貌和尊重
• 提供充分的理由和证据
• 避免"The reviewer is wrong"这样的表述

回复模板:

We appreciate the reviewer's concern. However, we respectfully note that [解释理由]. This choice is motivated by [具体原因].

示例:

审稿意见:

"The authors should use method X instead of method Y."

回复:

"We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. However, we respectfully note that method Y is more suitable for our specific setting because [理由1] and [理由2]. While method X has advantages in [场景A], our preliminary experiments showed that method Y achieves better performance in our task due to [具体原因]. We have added this discussion to Section 3.2."

---

3. Clarify（澄清策略）

适用场景:

• 审稿人误解了论文内容
• 论文中已有相关内容但审稿人未注意到
• 需要指出论文中已有的说明或实验

关键原则:

• 礼貌地指出论文中已有的内容
• 提供具体的位置引用（章节、页码、图表）
• 避免让审稿人感到尴尬
• 可以考虑改进表述使其更清晰

回复模板:

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We would like to respectfully clarify that [已有内容的说明]. This is discussed in [具体位置]. To make this clearer, we have [改进措施].

示例:

审稿意见:

"The authors did not compare their method with baseline X."

回复:

"We thank the reviewer for this comment. We would like to respectfully clarify that we did include comparisons with baseline X in our experiments. These results are presented in Table 2 (page 6) and discussed in Section 4.2. To make this comparison more prominent, we have added a dedicated paragraph highlighting the key differences and added baseline X to Figure 3 for visual comparison."

注意事项:

• 即使审稿人误解了，也要保持礼貌和尊重
• 如果可能，承认论文表述可以更清晰，并做出改进
• 提供具体的引用位置，方便审稿人查找

---

4. Experiment（实验策略）

适用场景:

• 审稿人要求补充关键实验或对比
• 实验要求合理且可行
• 补充实验能显著增强论文说服力
• Major Issues 中的实验要求

关键原则:

• 明确承诺会进行补充实验
• 说明实验设计和预期时间
• 如果已经完成，直接展示结果
• 如果时间紧迫，说明初步结果或计划

回复模板:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We agree that [实验的重要性]. We have conducted additional experiments on [实验内容]. The results show that [主要发现]. These new results have been added to [位置].

示例 1（已完成实验）:

审稿意见:

"The authors should compare their method with the recent state-of-the-art method Z."

回复:

"We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We agree that comparing with method Z is important for a comprehensive evaluation. We have conducted additional experiments comparing our method with Z on all three datasets. The results show that our method achieves comparable or better performance (Dataset A: +2.3%, Dataset B: +1.1%, Dataset C: -0.5%). These new results have been added to Table 3 and discussed in Section 4.3. We also provide detailed analysis of the performance differences in the revised manuscript."

示例 2（承诺进行实验）:

审稿意见:

"The authors should conduct ablation studies to verify the contribution of each component."

回复:

"We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. We agree that ablation studies are crucial for understanding the contribution of each component. We are currently conducting comprehensive ablation experiments and will include the results in the revised manuscript. Based on our preliminary analysis, we expect to show that [预期发现]. We will complete these experiments within the rebuttal period and update the manuscript accordingly."

注意事项:

• 只承诺可行的实验，不要过度承诺
• 如果实验不可行，需要解释原因（时间、资源、技术限制）
• 提供实验时间表，让审稿人了解进度
• 如果已完成，立即展示结果以增强说服力

---

成功模式（基于ICLR Spotlight论文）

从ICLR 2024 spotlight论文的成功rebuttal中提取的关键模式：

模式1: 认可优点，正面回应批评

观察:

• 审稿人通常会先认可论文的优点（novelty, impact, practical applicability）
• 即使是spotlight论文，也会收到建设性批评
• 约20%的论文在rebuttal后排名发生变化

应用策略:

We thank the reviewer for recognizing [acknowledged strength]. Regarding [concern], we have [specific action taken].

示例:

"We thank the reviewer for recognizing the novelty of our game-theoretic formulation. Regarding the brevity of Section 2.2, we have expanded it with 2-3 additional paragraphs providing more intuition for readers without a game theory background."

---

模式2: 提供清晰度和直觉理解

观察:

• 高质量论文仍可能存在clarity问题
• 审稿人需要为不同背景的读者提供intuition
• 建议：expand sections, move technical details to appendix

应用策略:

We apologize for the confusion. We have [clarification action]. To make this clearer, we have [additional improvements].

示例:

"We apologize for the confusion in Section 3.2. We have completely rewritten this section with detailed mathematical formulation and added Algorithm 1 with pseudocode. We have also moved some technical details to Appendix B to improve readability."

---

模式3: 充分论证实验设置

观察:

• 审稿人期望实验设置有充分的justification
• 需要考虑和讨论alternative metrics
• Comprehensive experiments是spotlight论文的共同特征

应用策略:

We chose [experimental setup] because [justification]. We have also considered [alternative approach], but [reason for current choice]. We have added [additional experiments] to strengthen our evaluation.

示例:

"We chose dataset W because it better represents our target scenario [justification]. We have also considered dataset Z, but it focuses on static graphs while our work targets dynamic graphs. We have added ablation studies showing that our improvement comes from fundamental architectural innovations."

---

模式4: 主动讨论伦理考量

观察:

• 对于涉及隐私、安全等敏感话题的研究，ethical considerations至关重要
• 审稿人会特别关注ethical implications
• Spotlight论文通常有thorough ethical discussions

应用策略:

We appreciate the concern about ethical implications. We have [ethical consideration actions]. We have also added [ethical safeguards/discussions].

示例:

"We appreciate the concern about privacy implications. We have added a comprehensive ethics section discussing potential risks and mitigation strategies. We have also included anonymization experiments and detailed our data handling procedures in Appendix C."

---

模式5: 强调实际应用价值

观察:

• 审稿人重视practical applicability和scalability
• "Easily applicable"和"scalable"是重要的优点
• Spotlight论文通常demonstrate practical benefits

应用策略:

Our method is [practical benefit]. It is easily applicable because [reason] and scales to [scale] without [limitation].

示例:

"Our method is practical and easily applicable to large language models without extensive tuning. It scales efficiently to models with up to 540B parameters, as demonstrated by our experiments. The consistent performance improvements across different model sizes highlight its practical value."

---

策略组合使用

在实际rebuttal中，通常需要组合使用多种策略：

组合示例 1: Accept + Clarify

审稿意见:

"The paper lacks discussion of limitation X, and the authors did not mention related work Y."

回复:

"We thank the reviewer for these valuable comments. Regarding limitation X, we agree this is an important point and have added a dedicated discussion in Section 5.3 (Accept). Regarding related work Y, we would like to respectfully clarify that we did discuss this work in Section 2.2 (page 3, paragraph 2). To make this more prominent, we have expanded the discussion and added it to the comparison table (Clarify)."

组合示例 2: Defend + Experiment

审稿意见:

"The authors should use dataset Z instead of dataset W, and should add experiments on task T."

回复:

"We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions. Regarding dataset Z, we respectfully note that dataset W is more suitable for our research question because [理由]. Dataset Z focuses on [场景A], while our work targets [场景B] (Defend). However, we agree that experiments on task T would strengthen our evaluation. We have conducted additional experiments on task T, and the results show [发现]. These new results have been added to Section 4.4 (Experiment)."

---

使用指南

策略选择流程

审稿意见 → 分类（Major/Minor/Typo/Misunderstanding）→ 选择策略
│
├─ Major Issues → Experiment (补充实验) 或 Defend (充分理由)
├─ Minor Issues → Accept (接受改进) 或 Clarify (澄清说明)
├─ Typos/Formatting → Accept (直接接受)
└─ Misunderstandings → Clarify (礼貌澄清)

策略优先级

1. 优先Accept: 如果意见合理且改进成本低 2. 谨慎Defend: 只在有充分理由时使用 3. 礼貌Clarify: 即使审稿人误解，也要保持尊重 4. 诚实Experiment: 只承诺可行的实验

语气原则

始终保持:

• ✅ 感谢审稿人的意见
• ✅ 尊重和礼貌的态度
• ✅ 具体的引用和证据
• ✅ 建设性的回应

避免:

• ❌ "The reviewer is wrong"
• ❌ "This is obvious"
• ❌ 防御性或攻击性语气
• ❌ 模糊或回避的回答

---

会议特定策略

不同顶会对rebuttal有不同的侧重点，了解这些差异可以帮助你更有针对性地回复。

NeurIPS

会议特点:

• 强调概念新颖性和理论贡献
• 重视broader impact和社会影响
• 要求reproducibility checklist

Rebuttal侧重点: 1. 突出概念创新 - 强调你的方法在概念上的新颖性 2. 展示broader impact - 说明研究的社会意义和潜在影响 3. 确保可复现性 - 承诺开源代码和数据

示例开场:

We thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. Our key contributions advance the field by [conceptual innovation]. We have strengthened the paper with [new experiments] and clarified [methodology]. All code and data will be released upon acceptance to ensure reproducibility.

回复策略:

• 当审稿人质疑新颖性时，强调概念上的突破而非仅仅是性能提升
• 主动讨论broader impact，即使审稿人没有明确要求
• 提供详细的实验设置和超参数，确保可复现

---

ICML

会议特点:

• 强调方法论严谨性和理论基础
• 重视数学证明和理论分析
• 要求broader impact statement

Rebuttal侧重点: 1. 展示理论严谨性 - 提供数学证明和理论分析 2. 强调方法论贡献 - 说明方法的理论优势 3. 补充理论分析 - 添加定理、引理或理论保证

示例开场:

We appreciate the reviewers' thorough evaluation. We have added theoretical analysis (Theorem 2, Appendix C) proving [property]. Our method's soundness is further validated by [experiments]. We have also expanded the broader impact statement to address [concern].

回复策略:

• 当审稿人质疑方法时，提供理论证明而非仅仅是实验结果
• 强调算法的理论复杂度和收敛性保证
• 将实验结果与理论预测联系起来

---

ICLR

会议特点:

• 强调实验彻底性和全面评估
• 重视局限性的诚实讨论
• 要求LLM使用披露（如适用）

Rebuttal侧重点: 1. 补充实验 - 添加审稿人要求的对比实验和消融研究 2. 扩展局限性讨论 - 诚实承认方法的局限性 3. 披露LLM使用 - 如果使用了LLM，明确说明使用方式

示例开场:

We thank the reviewers for their detailed comments. We have conducted additional experiments (Tables 4-6) addressing all concerns. We have also expanded the Limitations section (Section 5.2) and added LLM usage disclosure (Appendix D). These revisions significantly strengthen the empirical validation.

回复策略:

• 当审稿人要求更多实验时，优先添加而非辩解
• 主动扩展局限性讨论，展示对方法边界的清晰认识
• 如果使用了LLM辅助写作或实验，诚实披露并说明具体用途

ICLR 2026特定策略:

1. 证据支持的澄清最有效

• 研究表明，包含证据支持的澄清与分数提升最强相关
• 避免模糊或回避的回应，这些会维持或降低分数
• 明确引用原文中的具体章节或行号

示例:

Thank you for this concern. We respectfully clarify that we did include this comparison in Section 4.2 (page 6, lines 234-245). To make this more prominent, we have added a dedicated paragraph and included the baseline in Figure 3 for visual comparison.

2. 针对边界论文策略

• Rebuttal对边界分数论文（5-6分范围）影响最大
• 如果论文处于边界，即使小的改进也可能影响最终决定
• 重点关注可以快速提升的方面

3. 提交时机策略

• 在rebuttal期间中期提交可能更有效
• 避免过早或最后一刻提交
• 中期提交可以提高审稿人参与度和分数变化

4. 系统化回应结构 每个回应应遵循三步结构： 1. 总结审稿人观点 - 展示你理解了他们的反馈 2. 陈述你的回应 - 清晰说明你的立场 3. 提供具体证据 - 给出实验、解释或修改计划

示例:

**Reviewer's Concern**: The baseline comparison is insufficient.

**Our Response**: We appreciate this feedback. We understand the reviewer's concern about baseline coverage.

**Evidence**: We have added comparisons with three additional baselines (X, Y, Z) in Table 4 (Appendix). Results show our method achieves +2.3% improvement over the strongest baseline Z. We will integrate this into the main paper.

5. 利用页面限制扩展

• ICLR 2026将camera-ready版本从9页扩展到10页
• 可以利用额外的1页空间整合rebuttal中的新结果或讨论
• 在rebuttal中承诺将新内容添加到最终版本

6. 可复现性声明

• 强烈建议在主文本末尾（参考文献前）包含可复现性声明
• 讨论为确保可复现性所做的努力
• 引用论文、附录或补充材料中的相关部分

7. ICLR 2026评分系统

• 使用离散分数：{0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10}
• 0=Strong Reject, 2=Reject, 4=Weak Reject, 6=Weak Accept, 8=Accept, 10=Strong Accept
• 理解评分系统有助于判断论文处于哪个范围

---

CVPR

会议特点:

• 计算机视觉顶会，竞争激烈
• 严格的一页rebuttal限制
• 禁止外部链接和新的大规模实验
• 重视视觉效果和实验完整性

Rebuttal侧重点: 1. 识别"Champion"审稿人 - 找到支持你的审稿人，为他们提供强有力的论据 2. 重申核心贡献 - 在回应批评时，巧妙地提醒审稿人论文的重要贡献 3. 展示响应性 - 明确说明如何在最终版本中采纳建议

示例开场:

We thank all reviewers for their valuable feedback. We are particularly grateful to R2 for recognizing our novel approach to [X]. Regarding the concerns raised, we provide clarifications below and will incorporate all valid suggestions in the camera-ready version.

回复策略:

• 识别持积极态度的审稿人，为他们提供论据帮助他们在讨论中辩护
• 在解决问题的同时，巧妙强化论文的核心优势
• 对关键概念的误解提供明确、有说服力的澄清
• 展示对审稿人建议的认真对待，列出具体改进计划

特殊限制:

• 必须使用官方模板，严格一页限制
• 不得包含外部链接（代码、视频、补充材料）
• 可以包含基于已有结果的图表和对比表格
• 审稿人不应要求大规模新实验

---

ACL

会议特点:

• 自然语言处理顶会
• Best paper标准：fascinating, controversial, surprising, impressive, field-changing
• 重视方法的语言学意义和实际应用
• 要求Limitations和Ethics Statement

Rebuttal侧重点: 1. 小表格策略 - 如果审稿人要求额外结果，可以在rebuttal中包含小表格 2. 增强理解 - 目标是增强审稿人对论文的理解，而非大规模重写 3. 突出影响力 - 强调研究对NLP领域的潜在影响

示例开场:

We thank the reviewers for their insightful comments. We have prepared additional analysis to address the raised concerns. Below we provide clarifications and include a small table (Table R1) demonstrating the requested comparison. These results will be integrated into the revised manuscript.

回复策略:

• 如果审稿人要求额外数据，可以在rebuttal中包含小表格展示
• 强调研究的语言学意义和对NLP社区的贡献
• 主动讨论伦理影响，特别是涉及偏见、公平性的研究
• 展示对不同语言和文化背景的考虑

Best Paper考虑:

• 论文是否"fascinating"（引人入胜）- 提出令人兴奋的新问题或视角
• 是否"controversial"（有争议性）- 挑战现有假设
• 是否"surprising"（令人惊讶）- 违反直觉但有说服力的发现
• 是否"impressive"（令人印象深刻）- 技术深度或实验规模
• 是否"field-changing"（改变领域）- 潜在的长期影响

---

参考资源

更多详细的成功案例和模板，请参考：

• successful-cases.md - 真实的成功rebuttal案例库
• rebuttal-templates.md - 完整的rebuttal模板
• tone-guidelines.md - 语气和表达指南

审稿意见分类标准

本文档提供系统化的审稿意见分类方法，帮助快速识别和优先处理不同类型的审稿意见。

分类体系

1. Major Issues（重大问题）

定义: 涉及研究方法、实验设计、结果解释等核心问题，需要实质性修改或补充实验。

特征:

• 质疑研究方法的有效性
• 要求补充关键实验或对比
• 指出结果解释的逻辑问题
• 质疑研究的创新性或贡献

关键词识别:

• "major concern"
• "fundamental issue"
• "missing experiments"
• "insufficient evidence"
• "not convincing"

示例:

"The authors should compare their method with recent work [X]. Without this comparison, it's difficult to assess the true contribution."

建议回复策略: Accept + Experiment（接受意见并补充实验）

---

2. Minor Issues（次要问题）

定义: 需要澄清、补充说明或小幅修改的问题，不影响研究的核心贡献。

特征:

• 要求澄清某些细节
• 建议改进表述或组织
• 要求补充相关工作讨论
• 指出图表可以改进

关键词识别:

• "minor concern"
• "could be improved"
• "please clarify"
• "it would be better"
• "suggestion"

示例:

"The notation in Section 3.2 is confusing. Please clarify the meaning of variable α."

建议回复策略: Accept + Clarify（接受意见并澄清说明）

---

3. Typos/Formatting（拼写和格式问题）

定义: 拼写错误、语法问题、格式不一致等表面问题。

特征:

• 指出拼写错误
• 标注语法问题
• 指出引用格式不一致
• 图表标注错误

关键词识别:

• "typo"
• "grammar"
• "formatting"
• "inconsistent"
• "Figure X should be"

示例:

"Page 5, line 3: 'recieve' should be 'receive'."

建议回复策略: Accept（直接接受并修正）

---

4. Misunderstandings（审稿人的误解）

定义: 审稿人对论文内容的误解或误读，需要礼貌地澄清。

特征:

• 审稿人误解了方法或结果
• 审稿人忽略了论文中已有的说明
• 审稿人对某个概念有错误理解

关键词识别:

• "The authors did not..."（但实际上已经做了）
• "It is unclear..."（但论文中已经说明）
• "Why don't the authors..."（但已经做了）

示例:

"The authors did not compare with baseline X."

（但论文Table 2中已经包含了这个对比）

建议回复策略: Clarify（礼貌地指出论文中已有的内容）

---

使用指南

分类流程

1. 第一遍阅读 - 快速浏览所有审稿意见，标记关键词 2. 分类标注 - 为每条意见标注类型（Major/Minor/Typo/Misunderstanding） 3. 优先级排序 - 按照重要性排序（Major > Misunderstanding > Minor > Typo） 4. 制定策略 - 针对每条意见制定回复策略

优先级建议

高优先级（必须优先处理）:

• Major Issues - 需要补充实验或重大修改
• Misunderstandings - 需要澄清以避免误解加深

中优先级:

• Minor Issues - 需要改进但不影响核心贡献

低优先级:

• Typos/Formatting - 直接修正即可

注意事项

• 不要忽略任何意见 - 即使是小的typo也要在rebuttal中确认
• 礼貌对待误解 - 用"We apologize for the confusion"而不是"The reviewer misunderstood"
• Major Issues需要实质性回应 - 不能只是澄清，要有行动（实验、修改等）

成功Rebuttal案例库

本文档收集真实的成功rebuttal案例，提供可参考的实战模式。

案例来源

• ICLR 2024 Spotlight论文
• NeurIPS 2023 接收论文
• ICML 2023 接收论文

---

案例 1: 回应清晰度问题

审稿意见

"The algorithm description in Section 3.2 is unclear. I cannot understand how the attention mechanism is applied to the graph structure."

成功回复

We apologize for the confusion. We have completely rewritten Section 3.2 to clarify the attention mechanism:

**Original text** (unclear):
"We apply attention to nodes based on their features."

**Revised text** (clear):
"For each node v, we compute attention weights α_ij for all neighbors j ∈ N(v) using:
α_ij = softmax(LeakyReLU(a^T [W h_i || W h_j]))
where W is a learnable weight matrix and a is an attention vector."

We also added:
- Algorithm 1 with detailed pseudocode (page 5)
- Figure 3 showing a concrete example with 4 nodes (page 6)
- Appendix B with step-by-step walkthrough

These additions make the mechanism explicit and reproducible.

成功要素

• ✅ 承认问题
• ✅ 对比原文和修订文本
• ✅ 提供多种形式的说明（公式、算法、图示、示例）
• ✅ 说明具体位置

---

案例 2: 回应缺失实验

审稿意见

"The paper lacks comparison with the recent state-of-the-art method GraphTransformer (Dwivedi et al., 2022). This comparison is essential for evaluating the proposed method."

成功回复

We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have added comprehensive comparisons with GraphTransformer on all three datasets:

**New Results** (Table 3, page 7):
- ZINC: Our method 0.087 ± 0.004 vs GraphTransformer 0.094 ± 0.006 (8% improvement)
- MNIST: Our method 97.3% ± 0.2% vs GraphTransformer 96.5% ± 0.3% (0.8% improvement)
- PROTEINS: Our method 76.2% ± 1.1% vs GraphTransformer 75.1% ± 1.3% (1.1% improvement)

**Analysis** (Section 4.3, pages 7-8):
We also added ablation studies showing that our improvement comes from:
1. The simplicial-aware features (contributes 60% of improvement)
2. The efficient aggregation scheme (contributes 40% of improvement)

This demonstrates that our method's advantage is not just from better optimization, but from fundamental architectural improvements.

成功要素

• ✅ 感谢建议
• ✅ 提供具体数值结果
• ✅ 说明结果位置
• ✅ 添加分析解释改进来源
• ✅ 强调方法的本质优势

---

案例 3: 回应统计显著性质疑

审稿意见

"The improvements shown in Table 2 are marginal (0.5-1%). Are these differences statistically significant?"

成功回复

We agree that statistical testing is important. We have added comprehensive statistical analysis:

**Statistical Tests** (Table 2, updated):
- All comparisons now include 95% confidence intervals
- Paired t-tests show p < 0.01 for all improvements
- Results averaged over 10 runs (increased from 3)

**Practical Significance** (Section 4.2, page 7):
While the improvements are 0.5-1%, we note that:
1. In this domain, even 0.5% improvement is considered significant (see [Citation])
2. Our method achieves this with 3x faster training time
3. The improvement is consistent across all 5 datasets

**Updated Table 2**:
| Method | Accuracy | 95% CI | p-value |
|--------|----------|--------|---------|
| Baseline | 85.2% | [84.8, 85.6] | - |
| Ours | 86.1% | [85.7, 86.5] | <0.01 |

We believe both statistical and practical significance support our claims.

成功要素

• ✅ 承认统计检验的重要性
• ✅ 提供多种统计指标
• ✅ 区分统计显著性和实际显著性
• ✅ 提供领域背景支持
• ✅ 更新表格展示完整信息

---

案例 4: 回应基线不足

审稿意见

"Why didn't you compare with Method X and Method Y? These are important baselines in this area."

成功回复

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We have:

**Added Method X** (Table 3, page 7):
- Method X: 82.3% ± 1.2%
- Ours: 86.1% ± 0.8% (3.8% improvement)

**Excluded Method Y** with justification:
Method Y is designed for static graphs, while our work focuses on dynamic graphs. As noted in [Method Y paper, Section 5], "our method is not applicable to temporal settings." Direct comparison would be inappropriate because:
1. Method Y requires graph structure to be fixed
2. Our datasets have time-varying edges
3. Adapting Method Y would require substantial modifications that deviate from the original method

We have added this clarification to Section 4.1 (page 6).

成功要素

• ✅ 添加可比较的基线
• ✅ 解释排除原因（引用原文）
• ✅ 提供具体的技术理由
• ✅ 说明修改位置

---

案例 5: 回应过度声明

审稿意见

"The claim 'our method achieves state-of-the-art on all tasks' is too strong. Your method performs worse than Baseline X on Task 3."

成功回复

We accept that our original claim was too strong. We have revised throughout the paper:

**Abstract** (page 1):
- Original: "achieves state-of-the-art on all tasks"
- Revised: "achieves state-of-the-art on 4 out of 5 tasks and competitive performance on the remaining task"

**Introduction** (page 2):
- Added: "While our method excels on tasks requiring [property], it performs comparably to baselines on Task 3, which emphasizes [different property]."

**Limitations Section** (new Section 5.2, page 9):
We added a dedicated limitations section acknowledging:
1. Our method's relative weakness on Task 3
2. Potential reasons (Task 3 requires [property] which our architecture doesn't explicitly model)
3. Future directions to address this

We believe these revisions accurately reflect our contributions without overclaiming.

成功要素

• ✅ 承认问题
• ✅ 展示具体修改（原文 vs 修订文本）
• ✅ 添加限制性说明
• ✅ 提供技术解释
• ✅ 保持诚实和准确

---

案例 6: 回应写作质量问题

审稿意见

"The paper is hard to follow. Section 3 jumps between concepts without clear transitions. There are also several grammatical errors."

成功回复

We apologize for the writing issues. We have made substantial revisions:

**Section 3 Restructuring** (pages 4-6):
- Added subsection headings for clarity:
  - 3.1 Problem Formulation
  - 3.2 Model Architecture
  - 3.3 Training Procedure
- Added transition sentences between subsections
- Moved technical details to appendix

**Grammar and Style**:
- Professional editing service reviewed the entire manuscript
- Fixed all grammatical errors
- Improved technical terminology consistency
- Added a notation table (Appendix A)

**Improved Flow**:
- Added signposting: "In this section, we...", "Next, we describe..."
- Clarified pronoun references
- Shortened overly long sentences

The revised manuscript is significantly more readable while maintaining technical precision.

成功要素

• ✅ 承认问题
• ✅ 提供具体改进措施
• ✅ 展示结构性改进
• ✅ 说明专业编辑
• ✅ 强调可读性提升

---

通用成功模式总结

模式 1: 感谢 + 行动 + 证据

We thank the reviewer for [specific point].
We have [specific action taken].
[Evidence: results/figures/citations]

模式 2: 承认 + 修正 + 说明

We agree that [issue].
We have revised [specific location]:
- Original: [old text]
- Revised: [new text]
This addresses the concern by [explanation].

模式 3: 解释 + 证据 + 引用

We respectfully note that [our position].
This is supported by:
1. [Evidence 1]
2. [Evidence 2]
3. [Citation]

模式 4: 添加 + 位置 + 影响

We have added [new content].
Location: [Section X, Table Y, Figure Z]
This strengthens our claims by [impact].

---

会议特定策略

NeurIPS Rebuttal

侧重点:

• 强调概念新颖性
• 突出broader impact
• 展示reproducibility

示例开场:

We thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. Our key contributions advance the field by [conceptual innovation]. We have strengthened the paper with [new experiments] and clarified [methodology]. All code and data will be released upon acceptance.

ICML Rebuttal

侧重点:

• 强调理论严谨性
• 提供数学证明
• 展示方法论贡献

示例开场:

We appreciate the reviewers' thorough evaluation. We have added theoretical analysis (Theorem 2, Appendix C) proving [property]. Our method's soundness is further validated by [experiments]. We have also expanded the broader impact statement.

ICLR Rebuttal

侧重点:

• 强调实验彻底性
• 承认局限性
• 披露LLM使用

示例开场:

We thank the reviewers for their detailed comments. We have conducted additional experiments (Tables 4-6) addressing all concerns. We have also expanded the Limitations section and added LLM usage disclosure. These revisions significantly strengthen the empirical validation.

---

避免的错误模式

❌ 错误 1: 防御性语气

不好的回复:

"The reviewer clearly misunderstood our method. If they had read Section 3 carefully, they would see that..."

好的回复:

"We apologize for the confusion. We have clarified Section 3 to make this point more explicit..."

❌ 错误 2: 模糊承诺

不好的回复:

"We will add more experiments in the final version."

好的回复:

"We have added experiments comparing with Method X on datasets A, B, C (Table 4, page 8)."

❌ 错误 3: 忽略问题

不好的回复:

"This is beyond the scope of our paper."

好的回复:

"While [suggestion] is valuable, it is beyond our current scope due to [specific constraint]. However, we have added [alternative] which addresses the core concern."

❌ 错误 4: 过度技术化

不好的回复:

"Our method uses a novel attention mechanism with learnable parameters θ = {W_q, W_k, W_v, W_o} where..."

好的回复:

"We have clarified the attention mechanism in Section 3.2 with pseudocode (Algorithm 1) and a concrete example (Figure 3)."

---

使用建议

1. 选择相似案例 - 找到与你的审稿意见类似的案例 2. 适配具体情况 - 不要直接复制，根据实际情况调整 3. 保持诚实 - 只承诺能做到的事情 4. 提供证据 - 每个声明都要有支持 5. 说明位置 - 明确指出修改的具体位置

---

持续更新

本文档会持续更新，添加更多成功案例。如果你有好的rebuttal案例，欢迎补充。

语气指南

本文档提供rebuttal写作的语气指南，帮助保持专业、礼貌、有说服力的表达。

核心原则

1. 始终感谢

原则: 每个回复都以感谢开始，即使不同意审稿人的意见。

推荐表达:

• "We thank the reviewer for..."
• "We appreciate the reviewer's..."
• "We are grateful for..."

避免:

• 直接开始反驳
• 忽略感谢环节

---

2. 保持尊重

原则: 即使审稿人误解或错误，也要保持尊重的态度。

推荐表达:

• "We respectfully note that..."
• "We would like to clarify that..."
• "We appreciate the reviewer's perspective, however..."

避免:

• "The reviewer is wrong"
• "This is obvious"
• "The reviewer misunderstood"
• "The reviewer failed to notice"

---

3. 客观陈述

原则: 使用客观、基于事实的语言，避免情绪化表达。

推荐表达:

• "Our experiments show that..."
• "The results demonstrate..."
• "Based on our analysis..."

避免:

• "Obviously..."
• "Clearly..."
• "It is well-known that..."
• "Everyone knows..."

---

4. 建设性回应

原则: 即使不同意，也要提供建设性的解释和替代方案。

推荐表达:

• "While [审稿人建议] has merit, we chose [我们的方法] because..."
• "We have considered this approach, however..."
• "An alternative perspective is..."

避免:

• "This suggestion is not feasible"（没有解释）
• "We cannot do this"（没有替代方案）

---

5. 承认不足

原则: 当审稿人指出真实问题时，坦诚承认并说明改进。

推荐表达:

• "We acknowledge this limitation..."
• "We agree that this could be improved..."
• "This is a valid concern..."

避免:

• 回避问题
• 过度辩解
• 转移话题

---

专业表达方式

感谢类表达

---

同意类表达

---

不同意类表达（礼貌辩护）

---

澄清类表达

---

实验承诺类表达

---

不同场景的语气调整

场景 1: 审稿人完全正确

语气: 坦诚接受，感谢指出

示例:

"We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important issue. We agree that [问题描述]. We have [具体改进]."

---

场景 2: 审稿人部分正确

语气: 同意合理部分，礼貌解释其他部分

示例:

"We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. We agree that [合理部分]. However, regarding [其他部分], we respectfully note that [解释]."

---

场景 3: 审稿人误解了论文

语气: 礼貌澄清，承认可能表述不清

示例:

"We thank the reviewer for this comment. We would like to respectfully clarify that [澄清内容]. This is discussed in [位置]. We apologize if this was not sufficiently clear, and we have revised [位置] to make this more explicit."

---

场景 4: 审稿人要求不可行

语气: 解释限制，提供替代方案

示例:

"We appreciate this suggestion. However, [建议的方法] is not feasible in our setting due to [具体限制]. Instead, we have [替代方案], which [效果]. We believe this approach [优势]."

---

场景 5: 多个审稿人意见矛盾

语气: 平衡两方观点，说明选择理由

示例:

"We appreciate both Reviewer X's and Reviewer Y's perspectives on [问题]. After careful consideration, we have [我们的选择] because [理由]. We believe this approach addresses both reviewers' core concerns while [优势]."

---

语气对比示例

示例 1: 回应方法质疑

❌ 不好的表达:

"The reviewer is wrong. Our method is clearly better than the baseline."

✅ 好的表达:

"We appreciate the reviewer's concern about our method choice. We respectfully note that our method is more suitable for this setting because [理由1] and [理由2]. Our experiments show that it achieves [具体结果]. We have added this discussion to Section 3.2."

分析: 好的表达保持礼貌，提供具体理由和证据，并说明改进位置。

---

示例 2: 回应误解

❌ 不好的表达:

"The reviewer failed to notice that we already did this experiment in Section 4."

✅ 好的表达:

"We thank the reviewer for this comment. We would like to respectfully clarify that we did include this experiment in our study. The results are presented in Table 3 (page 6) and discussed in Section 4.2. To make this more prominent, we have added a dedicated paragraph highlighting these findings."

分析: 好的表达避免指责审稿人，礼貌澄清，并主动改进表述。

---

示例 3: 回应不可行的建议

❌ 不好的表达:

"This is impossible. We don't have access to that dataset."

✅ 好的表达:

"We appreciate this suggestion. While experiments on dataset X would be valuable, this dataset is not publicly available and requires institutional access that we currently do not have. However, we have conducted experiments on dataset Y, which has similar characteristics. The results show [发现]. We have added these results to Section 4.4."

分析: 好的表达解释限制原因，提供替代方案，并展示实际行动。

---

示例 4: 回应typo指正

❌ 不好的表达:

"Fixed."

✅ 好的表达:

"We thank the reviewer for catching this. We have corrected all typos throughout the manuscript."

分析: 即使是小的typo，也要表达感谢并说明改进范围。

---

示例 5: 回应补充实验要求

❌ 不好的表达:

"We will add these experiments in the final version."

✅ 好的表达:

"We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have conducted additional experiments comparing our method with baseline X on all three datasets. The results show that our method achieves [具体结果]. These new results have been added to Table 4 and discussed in Section 4.5."

分析: 好的表达展示已完成的工作，提供具体结果和位置，而不是模糊的承诺。

---

总结：语气检查清单

在完成rebuttal后，使用以下清单检查语气：

✅ 必须包含

• [ ] 每个回复都以感谢开始
• [ ] 使用"We"而不是"I"
• [ ] 提供具体的位置引用（章节、页码、表格、图表）
• [ ] 说明具体的改进措施
• [ ] 保持礼貌和专业的语气

❌ 必须避免

• [ ] 没有"The reviewer is wrong"或类似表述
• [ ] 没有"Obviously"、"Clearly"等傲慢词汇
• [ ] 没有防御性或攻击性语气
• [ ] 没有模糊的承诺（"We will..."没有具体内容）
• [ ] 没有忽略任何审稿意见

---

使用建议

1. 写作流程

1. 初稿: 先写出所有回复的内容，不过分关注语气 2. 语气检查: 使用本文档的检查清单逐条检查 3. 替换表达: 将不当表达替换为推荐的专业表达 4. 整体审查: 确保所有回复的语气一致 5. 他人审阅: 请同事或导师审阅语气是否得当

2. 常见陷阱

陷阱 1: 过度防御

• 问题: 感觉被攻击，语气变得防御性
• 解决: 深呼吸，记住审稿人是在帮助改进论文

陷阱 2: 过度妥协

• 问题: 对所有意见都说"Yes"，失去立场
• 解决: 有充分理由时，礼貌但坚定地辩护

陷阱 3: 模糊回应

• 问题: 回复含糊其辞，没有具体行动
• 解决: 每个回复都要有具体的Response和Changes

3. 不同会议/期刊的语气差异

顶会（NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR）:

• 更注重技术细节
• 可以更直接地讨论技术选择
• 但仍需保持礼貌

顶级期刊（Nature, Science）:

• 更注重broader impact
• 语气需要更加谨慎和全面
• 强调社会意义和影响

领域会议:

• 根据领域文化调整
• 某些领域更直接，某些更委婉

4. 最后提醒

记住: 审稿人是志愿者，他们花时间审阅你的论文是在帮助你。即使不同意他们的意见，也要表达感激和尊重。

目标: 让审稿人感到：

• 他们的意见被认真对待
• 作者做出了实质性的改进
• 作者态度专业、合作

这样的rebuttal最有可能获得积极的响应。