rebuttal后有可能得分更低吗

如何写学术论文的rebuttal~

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：


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 https://openreview.net/forum?id=BkjLkSqxg。

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: http://arxiv.org/ [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]

我们觉得是的
不知道楼主如何认为
不过要看他的具体操作

这是他们在词典中的英文解释refutation---A refutation of an argument, accusation, or theory is something that proves it is wrong or untrue. 能证明一种观点、指责或理论是错误或不真实的就是驳斥。rebuttal---If you ke a rebuttal of a charge or accusation that has been de against you, you ke a statement which gives reasons why the accusation is untrue. 一种对责备和不真实的事情进行说理的辩驳。区别就是rebuttal一般会是列举实例或说理性的辩驳，而refutation指一般性的反驳。回答不易，望采纳！

---

桃江县13695744117： 同一台电脑配置不变,用同一版本的鲁大师测试性能,一年后的性能评分会比一年前得分低吗? - ？
汲谈清肝： 有可能哦 配置虽然不变,,但可能你会改变驱动啊 分数也会变化的,,,,但变化不会太大

桃江县13695744117： TOEFL复议的话分数变低的几率有多少??? - ？
汲谈清肝： ls两个不太准啊 这里有个寄托上的调查 复议后的结果 1. 口语(写作)单项复议比原分数降了3分以上 1.57% (71) 2. 口语(写作)单项复议比原分数降了0——3分 2.11% (95) 3. 口语(写作)单项复议比原分数升了0——3分 4.32% (195) 4. 口语(...

桃江县13695744117： 二审的rebuttal返回后接收可能性有多大 - ？
汲谈清肝： 回后接收可能

桃江县13695744117： 直通车质量得分不稳定,刚加热词质量得分9分,一夜就掉6分了,有什么办法可以稳定质量得分吗 - ？
汲谈清肝： 您好,一般关键词的质量得分肯定是越高越好.如果是比较热门的词,最好是9分或者10分.不过一般是8分以上比较好. 不过如果关键词是长尾关键词的话,有转化,比较精准的,这个就无所谓了 不用在意质量得分,只看转化就行了.现在淘宝的质量得分也不稳定,经常变化.不懂可追问,~如果你认可我的回答,请 及时点击【采纳为满意回答】按钮~ ~你 的采纳是我前进的动力~~ ~如还有新的 问题,请另外向我求助,答题不易,敬 请谅解~~ 很不错哦, 试试搜:电商知识人(转化率提升之支付转化率)

桃江县13695744117： 在篮球中怎样的传球才能被叫做助攻? - ？
汲谈清肝： 助攻在篮球的笼统定义是通过传递帮助己方队友完成得分.NBA对于球场上的助攻表现以及对于助攻技术统计均有非常细致的规定.在助攻方面,定义为:当球处于活球阶段,通过持球球员对于球的传递,帮助第一位触球的己方球员完成直接...

桃江县13695744117： 什么是乔丹规则? - ？
汲谈清肝： 在上世纪八十年代末期,由于乔丹的能力太强,其主要对手——底特律活塞队发明了独一无二的乔丹规则,主要内容是对特殊的球员采取特殊的待遇,如:少让乔丹拿球,不让乔丹传球等等,从而成功的克制了...

桃江县13695744117： 在一些比赛中,计算选手的最后得分时,往往先去掉一个最高分和一个最低分,再计算,为什么? - ？
汲谈清肝： 去掉一个最高分和最低分做法主要是为了公平,公正和公开的原则,防止有人买通评委,有特别的高分出现,另外,也可以防止因为评委个人原因,对选手有“低见”给特别低的分