•1 min read•from Machine Learning
How to deal with rebuttal character limit for long reviews? [D]
Our take
Navigating the character limit in rebuttals can be challenging, especially when faced with extensive reviewer comments. This situation often arises in the context of AI conferences, where detailed feedback may be condensed into a limited response space. To effectively address this, prioritize clarity and conciseness in your rebuttal. Focus on the most critical points raised by reviewers, summarizing their concerns succinctly while providing clear, actionable responses. This strategic approach not only respects the character constraints but also fosters constructive dialogue with reviewers.
First time submitting to an AI conference here.
How do you deal with the situation where a reviewer gives you a long list of review comments, but you only have a 2.5k character limit in your rebuttal?
I think this is very common nowadays because reviewers are dumping papers into LLMs.
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- UAI 2026 rebuttal [D]Hello! Following the review release Thursday, I just finished working on my rebuttal. I assumed I would be allowed 5,000 characters ( that was the case for ICML), but it turns out the rebuttal at UAI is limited to 2,500 characters. Also, under each review, you have the choice to leave a rebuttal and a public comment. The public comment has a 5,000-character limit, so I was wondering if it would be okay to use the official comment button rather than the rebuttal button ? Or perhaps start in the rebuttal and continue in the comment, or is that frowned upon? I am not sure if this character limit for the rebuttal is like the same thing as the 8-pages limit, and thus writing a longer rebuttal in the comment section and pointing to it can be ground for desk rejection. If anyone has gone through this before or if there are any ACs or SACs that know the ruling regarding using the public comment section to continue the rebuttal. My idea would be to start the rebuttal in the rebuttal section, then later on leave a public comment titled « continuation of the rebuttal for reviewer x »and then finish my rebuttal there. Is that allowed, forbidden, or frowned upon? Thanks submitted by /u/DazzlingPin3965 [link] [comments]
- [R] Best way to tackle this ICML vague response?Going through ICML submission for the first time. I had a reviewer ask for some things and during the rebuttal period I ran more experiments and answered all their questions (they wrote 3 weaknesses). Yesterday started the author-reviewer discussion period which ends on April 7. In their response to my rebuttal the reviewer wrote in one line that my "experiments greatly improved the paper" but "some details remain only partially clarified". That's it... They marked "Acknowledgement: (b) Partially resolved - I have follow-up questions for the authors." The ICML email state that I can "post up to one additional response to any further reviewer comments that are posted, as a reply to your rebuttal". But since the reviewers didn't actually write any follow up questions I have no idea how to tackle this. Any suggestions? submitted by /u/DaBobcat [link] [comments]