Unverified50% confidenceOpinionExact time
In a rebuttal, responding point by point to review numbers, giving conclusions before arguments, and avoiding restating the paper's content are widely considered more effective writing practices.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/23/2026
First Seen
Sources
AAAI 2027 Phase 2 Decisions Imminent: Community Debates Review Fairness and Submission Ecosystem
redditr/MachineLearning10/23/2026
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedHigh-confidence negative reviews are harder to overturn through rebuttal because the reviewer believes they fully understand the paper.71% similarUnverified审稿人若在rebuttal后维持低分，应明确沟通新的理由而非以模糊的个人感受搪塞70% similarUnverifiedSome commenters point out that rather than having the reviewer reason through the logic line by line, it is better to let test coverage take on correctness verification, with review focusing on places the tests do not cover.70% similarUnverifiedThe authors strongly recommend using a judge of equal or greater capability for original evaluations, because simpler or weaker judges let in a large number of misjudgments.69% similarUnverifiedSuggestions raised in community discussions include: adding a "clarity of expression" scoring item to the review form, requiring authors to respond to specific readability issues in the rebuttal, and publishing positive and negative writing examples.69% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1090385API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1090385MCP
get_claim(id=1090385)