The reviewer who engaged, then went quiet. The negative reviewer who simply vanished. And one explicit positive vote to hold onto. This is the limbo that academic researchers know all too well, the silence after the rebuttal. Our view is straightforward: this silence is not a verdict, and treating it as one only adds unnecessary stress to an already demanding process. The real work happens when you stop trying to read the minds of absent reviewers and start focusing on what you can control: the clarity of your response and the strength of your paper.
For researchers navigating this exact situation, the practical takeaway is to reframe the silence as a signal of completion, not rejection. If you have addressed minor comments and received an acknowledgment, the Associate Editor (AE) will typically weigh that interaction as a de facto acceptance of your revisions. The ghosted reviewer, frustrating as it is, often defaults to their initial score, but the AE has the authority to override that if your rebuttal demonstrates clear improvements. This is where your own data management becomes critical. Just as Connect Talent and Opportunity in AI-Native Spreadsheets emphasizes the value of structured, accessible records, your rebuttal document should be a living record, timestamped, versioned, and organized so that the AE can see your entire conversation at a glance. The more transparent your process, the easier it is for an editor to make a confident decision.
The anxiety around reviewer silence often stems from a mismatch between the pace of academic review and the speed at which we want answers. We have seen this tension play out across the research community. For instance, as Explore the future of AI in education as NeurIPS Education Track decisions near reminds us, waiting for decisions is a universal experience, one that benefits from a structured approach rather than passive worry. The researcher in this story has done the hard part: they responded, they adapted, and they documented. The next step is not to chase ghosts, but to prepare a concise summary for the AE that highlights the back-and-forth with the engaged reviewer and the unchanged status of the negative one. This shifts the burden of interpretation from you to the person with the power to act.
One specific detail to watch: the AE's decision often hinges on whether the remaining concerns are "minor" or "major." In this case, the researcher reports only minor comments were raised and addressed. That distinction matters. An AE is far more likely to count silence as a yes when the outstanding issues are small and have been demonstrably resolved. So instead of refreshing your inbox, spend that energy building a one-page summary of changes, cross-referenced to reviewer comments. Then send it to the AE with a polite note. That action, not the waiting, is what moves the needle.