论文rebuttal模板-论文rebuttal的第一句应该怎么写

1. Rebuttal的基本格式

一般rebuttal都有比较严格的篇幅要求,比如不能多于500或600个词。所以rebuttal的关键是要在有限的篇幅内尽可能清晰全面的回应数个reviewer的关注问题,做到释义清楚且废话少说。目前我的rebuttal的格式一般如下所示:

<img src="

" data-rawwidth="1592" data-rawheight="1124" class="origin_image zh-lightbox-thumb" width="1592" data-original="

">

其中,不同reviewer提出的同样的问题可以不用重复回答,可以直接"Please refer to A2 to reviewer#1"。结构清晰的rebuttal能够对reviewer和area chair提供极大的便利,也便于理解。

2. Rebuttal的内容

Rebuttal一定要着重关注reviewer提出的重点问题,这些才是决定reviewer的态度的关键,不要尝试去回避这种问题。回答这些问题的时候要直接且不卑不亢,保持尊敬的同时也要敢于指出reviewer理解上的问题。根据我的审稿经验,那些明显在回避一些问题的response只会印证自己的负面想法;而能够直面reviewer问题,有理有据指出reviewer理解上的偏差的response则会起到正面的效果。(PS: 如果自己的工作确实存在reviewer提出的一些问题,不妨表示一下赞同,并把针对这个问题的改进列为future work)

面对由于reviewer理解偏差造成全部reject的情况,言辞激烈一点才有可能引起Area Chair的注意,有最后一丝机会,当然,最基本的礼貌还是要有,不过很有可能有负面的效果,参考今年ICLR LipNet论文rebuttal

。

3. Rebuttal的意义

大家都知道通过rebuttal使reviewer改分的概率很低,但我认为rebuttal是一个尽人事的过程,身边也确实有一些从reject或borderline通过rebuttal最终被录用的例子。尤其像AAAI/IJCAI这种AI大领域的会议,最近两年投稿动则三四千篇,这么多reviewer恰好是自己小领域同行的概率很低,难免会对工作造成一些理解上的偏差甚至错误,此时的rebuttal就显得特别重要。所以对于处于borderline或者由于错误理解造成低分的论文,一定!一定!一定!要写好rebuttal!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

最后贴一下LeCun在CVPR2012发给pc的一封withdrawal rebuttal镇楼(该rebuttal被pc做了匿名处理),据说促成了ICLR的诞生,希望自己以后也有写这种rebuttal的底气:)

Hi Serge,

We decided to withdraw our paper #[ID no.] from CVPR "[Paper Title]" by [Author Name] et al.

We posted it on ArXiv:

/

[Paper ID] .

We are withdrawing it for three reasons: 1) the scores are so low, and the reviews so ridiculous, that I don't know how to begin writing a rebuttal without insulting the reviewers; 2) we prefer to submit the paper to ICML where it might be better received; 3) with all the fuss I made, leaving the paper in would have looked like I might have tried to bully the program committee into giving it special treatment.

Getting papers about feature learning accepted at vision conference has always been a struggle, and I've had more than my share of bad reviews over the years. Thankfully, quite a few of my papers were rescued by area chairs.

This time though, the reviewers were particularly clueless, or negatively biased, or both. I was very sure that this paper was going to get good reviews because: 1) it has two simple and generally applicable ideas for segmentation ("purity tree" and "optimal cover"); 2) it uses no hand-crafted features (it's all learned all the way through. Incredibly, this was seen as a negative point by the reviewers!); 3) it beats all published results on 3 standard datasets for scene parsing; 4) it's an order of magnitude faster than the competing methods.

If that is not enough to get good reviews, I just don't know what is.

So, I'm giving up on submitting to computer vision conferences altogether. CV reviewers are just too likely to be clueless or hostile towards our brand of methods. Submitting our papers is just a waste of everyone's time (and incredibly demoralizing to my lab members)

I might come back in a few years, if at least two things change:

- Enough people in CV become interested in feature learning that the probability of getting a non-clueless and non-hostile reviewer is more than 50% (hopefully [Computer Vision Researcher]'s tutorial on the topic at CVPR will have some positive effect).

- CV conference proceedings become open access.

We intent to resubmit the paper to ICML, where we hope that it will fall in the hands of more informed and less negatively biased reviewers (not that ML reviewers are generally more informed or less biased, but they are just more informed about our kind of stuff). Regardless, I actually have a keynote talk at [Machine Learning Conference], where I'll be talking about the results in this paper.

Be assured that I am not blaming any of this on you as the CVPR program chair. I know you are doing your best within the traditional framework of CVPR.

I may also submit again to CV conferences if the reviewing process is fundamentally reformed so that papers are published before they get reviewed.

You are welcome to forward this message to whoever you want.

I hope to see you at NIPS or ICML.

Cheers,

-- [Author]

可以采用对比方法写景。如《祝福》的开头与结尾写祝福时的景色气氛,以乐景反衬祥林嫂的悲剧,更增强了作品对旧社会的批判力量。

5、自然景色可以暗喻某种社会环境,如高尔基的《海燕》,茅盾的《雷雨前》。

社会环境描写从狭义上说,社会环境是指人物活动的处所、背景、氛围等;而从广义上说,是指一定的历史时期的社会生活、人际关系的总和。

社会环境描写应该注意几点:

有SCI论文投稿经历的作者应该都有深有体会,要发表一篇SCI论文真的没那么简单。论文的方向、英文稿件的撰写、各种审稿意见.......下文我就为大家分享回复修稿信的方法?

回复信(response letter,rebuttal

letter)想必各位作者都不会陌生,这是大多数论文在见刊前作者都需要做的意见事情,为什么呢?因为大部分稿件在期刊发表前需要经历至少一次的修稿,由于各种原因初次投稿的论文没有达到期刊的要求或者审稿编辑的要求,都需要对论文进行修改,在修改完善以后作者需要将回复信和修改稿一并递交杂志社,曜文编译提醒各位作者回复信需要逐点回复专家的修改意见。同时也要注意回复意见的整体性,写好一封回复信很重要。

一、回复信的写法:1.回复信的开头要提供论文题目和投稿编号,并用少许篇幅感谢审稿人及修改意见。2.逐点回复专家的修改意见,如果打算把逐点回复分开来放,可以简短列出根据评审意见进行的主要修改有哪些,然后说明会将逐点回复另外附加;如果是将逐点回复放在信里,可以说回复在后。

二、编写回复信的注意事项

1.审稿意见的全面回复:如果作者再回复审稿意见时,会有遗漏或回避一些审稿意见的情况,建议作者还是全面回复审稿意见比较妥当,即使有不同意或不接受修改,也要说明原因。在每一点意见后面提供清楚详细的回复,一定要确认编辑和审稿人所有提出的点都回复了。

2.将审稿意见与回复内容区别开来:将评审意见编号,顺序回复,在论文中的修改处标示出来或是指出论文修改前后的个别行数,可以将审稿意见加粗,与回复内容做区别。

3. 审稿意见分类:如果意见很多,可以试着将它们进行分类,例如将方法相关的意见分在一起、语言相关的一组等等,如果将意见进行分组,记得在信里提及“I

have separated my responses to the reviewers’ comments according to several

categories in order to achieve an integrated approachin my responses”。

4.评审意见的点列式回复:如果评审员的意见是长长的段落,可以将意见分离成点各别回应,如果不确定某项意见的意思,可以先解释自己对该意见的理解,然后再进行回复。

5.与审稿意见的分歧处理:同行评审的老师通常是领域内的专家,如果作者认为审稿人误解了论文里的任何段落,有时候很有可能是因为表达不够清楚。这种情况下,可以礼貌性的指出误解然后提供必要的说明。可以这么写“I

am sorry that this part was not clear in the original manuscript. I should have

explained that (……详细说明). I have revised the contents of this part”。

如果审稿人要求提供更多数据或是补做实验,而你认为没有必要,还是要说明为什么不做,避免像是经费不够或是没有时间这种私人理由,也不要表现出负面的态度,回复中要表现出对意见的重视和尊重。回答必须要清楚有逻辑并有证据支持。

6.新资料的添加:若添加任何新的数据或图片,要提及它们在论文的什么位置:如果在修改过程中加入了新的数据、表格、图片等资料,记得指出它们的所在位置,必要的话,夹带补充资料给审稿人和编辑,如此他们可以直接对照,不用一个一个搜寻。

7. 适当的总结:结尾像“Since all the corrections have been made, we hope the

manuscript will now be accepted without any further

changes”,这样的结尾可能会过于自负,如果要直接又不失礼,可以这么说:“We look forward to hearing from you

regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions

and comments that you may have”,这样的结尾正式有礼也表达了愿意在必要的情况下进行更多修改的意愿。

以上就是对写SCI回复信的方法整理和分享,在得到审稿编辑的修稿意见以后一定要非常重视,在自己理解编辑意图的同时也可以需求专业的帮助。选择专业的SCI论文润色公司进行论文的润色和修改就是一个不错的办法。