How to Write a Good Rebuttal
The insights shared in this post come from my advisor’s guidance, which I have organized and summarized here.
With the rise of Open Review systems, the rebuttal phase has become increasingly important in the paper submission process. Statistics show that a well-written rebuttal can improve average scores by more than 1 point, especially for papers that eventually get accepted. Yet most authors underutilize this opportunity. This post shares practical strategies for writing effective rebuttals.
Before diving in, keep in mind: rebuttals can only save papers whose core contributions are sound. If reviewers fundamentally question your task’s importance or your idea’s novelty, the battle was lost at the topic selection stage. The foundation of any successful rebuttal is solid work.
The Golden Rule
Here’s the overarching strategy to keep in mind:
Secure supportive reviewers, win over undecided reviewers, convince or isolate negative reviewers, gain AC support, and achieve final victory!
Rebuttal is a multi-party game with information asymmetry. Understanding each player’s perspective is crucial.
Mindset Matters
Stay respectful and grateful. Reviewers are volunteers. Regardless of what they write, maintain a genuinely positive attitude—it will show in your responses and influence how both reviewers and ACs perceive you.
Stay calm and objective. Don’t evaluate your chances based on initial scores alone. Instead, analyze the specific comments:
- If the task importance is widely questioned → hope is slim (this is your work’s foundation)
- If the idea’s novelty is widely questioned → hope is also slim (this is your core contribution)
- If only other aspects (experiments, writing, etc.) are questioned → there’s room for rescue
Understanding the AC’s Perspective
ACs are typically senior scholars handling many submissions. They can’t read every paper carefully and rely heavily on reviews and rebuttals to make decisions. This means your rebuttal should have:
- Distinct formatting that’s easy to scan
- Clear logic that’s easy to follow
- Highlighted key points that are impossible to miss
What do ACs care about most? Two things:
- The accepted paper must be correct
- The paper should positively advance the field
Your rebuttal should assure them on both counts. Highlight what’s novel about your work—new tasks, ideas, phenomena, insights, perspectives, or methods—that will inspire future research.
Dealing with Different Reviewer Types
The “Confused” Reviewer
First, a mindset shift: there are no “ignorant” reviewers. If someone misses something you wrote, your writing wasn’t clear enough.
These reviewers might claim you didn’t compare with certain methods (when you did, perhaps in the Appendix) or ask about basic terms. Ironically, they’re the easiest to win over. Patiently explain, take responsibility for the confusion, and promise to clarify in the revision. Making them feel respected earns their trust.
The Hostile Reviewer
Unfortunately, hostile reviewers exist—often close peers who may have conflicts of interest. Their comments tend to be subjective with very high confidence: “the task has no value,” “this idea was proposed elsewhere,” “no innovation.”
Don’t expect them to raise their scores. They may ignore discussions entirely or keep nitpicking. Instead:
- Respond patiently and professionally anyway
- Leverage positive comments from other reviewers
- Let the AC sense the reviewer’s bias through the exchange
- If appropriate, write a polite note to the AC pointing out specific errors or unreasonable demands (like requesting comparison with unpublished work)
Cross-Reviewer Consistency
Remember: all reviewers can read all responses. When multiple reviewers raise similar questions, never give inconsistent or contradictory answers. Address common concerns in a shared response section.
Writing Your Response
Understand the Question First
Reviewers’ comments can be scattered or verbose. Read carefully and cross-reference with their other comments. If you’re still uncertain about their meaning, write:
“Our understanding of this question is [X]. If we have misunderstood, we would greatly appreciate clarification. Based on this understanding, we address the question as follows…”
Also try to understand the intent behind questions. What do they care about most? Look at both the questions and justification sections.
Restate Questions Concisely
For critical questions, briefly restate them before answering. This:
- Helps reviewers recall their own comments (they’ve likely forgotten)
- Frames the discussion in your preferred direction
- Helps ACs quickly understand what’s being addressed
Format for Skimming
Reviewers and ACs won’t read every word. Your format should enable them to grasp your points by reading only the bold text. Use:
- Clear hierarchical structure (parallel or progressive)
- Bold key phrases at the start of each point
- Important questions addressed first
- Common questions in a shared response section
Expression Principles
Be polite. Always. Authors who complain or show impatience leave a negative impression on ACs.
Be evidence-based. Every claim needs support: experimental results, references, or other reviewers’ positive comments. Never make empty assertions.
Be strategic. Highlight positive reviewer comments at the start of your responses. Never be self-deprecating—avoid phrases like “We are sorry that we incorrectly…” which can make reviewers doubt your entire paper. If you must acknowledge an error, try:
“Thank you for your careful review. We would like to clarify that [X] should be [Y]…”
Be restrained. Don’t oversell your work or go off-topic. Extra claims about your method’s advantages might invite more questioning.
Adding Experiments
New experiments are your most powerful tool for raising scores. Make every effort to fulfill reasonable requests—and even some unreasonable ones—to demonstrate your positive attitude.
Present results clearly. Use tables or figures. Explain the setup completely; don’t just say “see the main text.”
Be measured in conclusions. New experiments are rushed and less credible than your original ones. Frame them as preliminary:
“These results preliminarily support our hypothesis. We will provide more comprehensive experiments in the final version.”
If experiments aren’t possible:
- For resource/time constraints: Sincerely explain your situation and provide scaled-down experiments (smaller datasets, simpler models)
- For design uncertainty: Explain your thinking about how such experiments could be designed, including potential challenges
Never make excuses like:
- “Other papers didn’t do this, so we don’t need to”
- “Other papers already showed this method is bad”
- “This is outside our scope”
Papers using these excuses rarely succeed.
A Final Warning
Even with all these strategies, AC approval isn’t guaranteed. From the AC’s perspective, a paper requiring many additional experiments wasn’t well-prepared. Rushed experiments are hard to verify.
The most important work happens before submission. Don’t be lazy with your initial experiments—the rebuttal should be a refinement, not a rescue mission.
Key Takeaways
- The golden rule: Secure supporters, win over fence-sitters, isolate opponents, gain AC support
- Mindset: Respect, gratitude, and calm objectivity
- Format: Make it scannable—bold key points, clear structure
- Experiments: Add them diligently; never make excuses
- Preparation: The real battle is won before submission