Posts

Showing posts from June, 2016

Status update on the Software Language Book

Deleting this post as it superseded by newer updates.

Responding to reviews of rejected conference papers

This post is concerned with this overall question: How to make good use of reviews for a rejected conference paper? The obvious answer is presumably something like this: Extract TODOs from the reviews. Do you work. Resubmit. In this post, I'd like to advocate an additional element: Write a commentary on the reviews. Why would you respond on reviews for a rejected conference paper? Here are the reasons I can think of: R1 :  You received a review that is clearly weak and you want to complain publicly . I recommend against this complaint model. It is unfriendly with regard to the conference, the chairs, and the reviewers. If one really needs to complain, then one should do this in a friendly manner by direct communication with the conference chair. R2 : You spot factual errors in an otherwise serious review and you want to defend yourself publicly . There is one good reason for doing this. Just write it off your chest. There is two good reasons for not doing