Rebuttal
A stage in the academic conference review process that allows paper authors to submit a brief response after receiving initial reviewer comments, used to clarify misunderstandings, provide additional experiments, or counter unreasonable reviewer opinions.
Timeline (last 90 days)
In a rebuttal, responding point by point to review numbers, giving conclusions before arguments, and avoiding restating the paper's content are widely considered more effective writing practices.
Appeal (formal appeal) generally targets a rejection outcome and goes through the conference's post-hoc review channel, unlike rebuttal.
Rebuttal is a time-limited response mechanism for authors after receiving review comments and before the final decision, usually allowing only one submission of a statement with a word limit.
Rebuttal is a key stage in the review process of top AI conferences, where authors have approximately one week after reviewer comments are published to respond in writing to reviewers' questions, after which reviewers may revise their scores accordingly.
Some scholars suggest upgrading the questioning standards during the rebuttal stage from confirming textual descriptions to probing methodological choices, experimental details, and even failure cases, making it an institutional defense against AI-generated slop papers.
The target audience of the rebuttal stage is not only the reviewers but also the area chair, who may influence the final decision.
A successful rebuttal typically features precisely addressing core concerns, speaking with data and facts, maintaining politeness and professionalism, and distinguishing priorities.
The rebuttal phase allows authors to submit a brief response after seeing the initial review comments, to clarify misunderstandings or supplement experiments.
It is the norm for reviewers not to respond during the rebuttal stage, and the content of the authors' response will enter the AC's decision-making purview.
Reviewers have the right to choose not to respond to authors' rebuttals.
2 more timeline events
All Facts (12)
In a rebuttal, responding point by point to review numbers, giving conclusions before arguments, and avoiding restating the paper's content are widely considered more effective writing practices.
50%UnverifiedAppeal (formal appeal) generally targets a rejection outcome and goes through the conference's post-hoc review channel, unlike rebuttal.
50%UnverifiedRebuttal is a time-limited response mechanism for authors after receiving review comments and before the final decision, usually allowing only one submission of a statement with a word limit.
50%UnverifiedRebuttal is a key stage in the review process of top AI conferences, where authors have approximately one week after reviewer comments are published to respond in writing to reviewers' questions, after which reviewers may revise their scores accordingly.
50%UnverifiedSome scholars suggest upgrading the questioning standards during the rebuttal stage from confirming textual descriptions to probing methodological choices, experimental details, and even failure cases, making it an institutional defense against AI-generated slop papers.
50%UnverifiedThe target audience of the rebuttal stage is not only the reviewers but also the area chair, who may influence the final decision.
50%UnverifiedA successful rebuttal typically features precisely addressing core concerns, speaking with data and facts, maintaining politeness and professionalism, and distinguishing priorities.
50%UnverifiedThe rebuttal phase allows authors to submit a brief response after seeing the initial review comments, to clarify misunderstandings or supplement experiments.
50%UnverifiedIt is the norm for reviewers not to respond during the rebuttal stage, and the content of the authors' response will enter the AC's decision-making purview.
50%UnverifiedReviewers have the right to choose not to respond to authors' rebuttals.
50%UnverifiedA rebuttal is a stage in the academic conference review process where authors provide written responses to reviewer comments, and it can determine the fate of borderline papers.
50%UnverifiedA high-quality rebuttal should focus on the core objections, use data and experiments to make its case, maintain professional restraint, and clearly clarify misunderstandings.
50%