Rebuttalinstructions

Personal.Rebuttalinstructions History

Show minor edits - Show changes to markup

Added line 6:
Changed lines 21-22 from:
  1. Stick to the facts. Rebuttals must address factual or substantive errors that authors feel a reviewer has made
to:
  1. Stick to the facts. Rebuttals must address factual or substantive errors that authors believe a reviewer has made
Changed lines 17-31 from:

1. Rebuttals are limited in length to 5000 characters.
The system will not let you enter any more than this.

2. Do not include any URLs to extra or new material.
These will be disregarded.

3. Stick to the facts.
Rebuttals must address factual or substantive errors that authors feel a reviewer has made

4. You do not have to write a rebuttal.
Only write a rebuttal if it could realistically make a difference.

5. Realize that your paper will be judged 'as is'.
The decision-making process is largely based on the paper as submitted. While you may suggest a few minor changes that you may make in response to referee comments, promising major changes to papers requiring substantive revisions will likely not change the outcome.

to:
  1. Rebuttals are limited in length to 5000 characters. The system will not let you enter any more than this.
  2. Do not include any URLs to extra or new material. These will be disregarded.
  3. Stick to the facts. Rebuttals must address factual or substantive errors that authors feel a reviewer has made
  4. You do not have to write a rebuttal. Only write a rebuttal if it could realistically make a difference.
  5. Realize that your paper will be judged 'as is'.The decision-making process is largely based on the paper as submitted. While you may suggest a few minor changes that you may make in response to referee comments, promising major changes to papers requiring substantive revisions will likely not change the outcome.
Changed lines 6-8 from:

On November 10, you will be able to see all current reviews plus a meta-review comment concerning your ACM CHI submissions(s). To do this, log onto the precision conference system ( http://precisionconference.com/~sigchi ) and select submissions in progress.

Between November 10 - November 16 \\

to:

November 10
You will be able to see all current reviews plus a meta-review comment concerning your ACM CHI submissions(s). To do this, log onto the precision conference system ( http://precisionconference.com/~sigchi ) and select submissions in progress.

Between November 10 - November 16: \\

Changed line 12 from:

November 16.

to:

November 16. \\

Changed lines 15-16 from:

However, there are some 'rules' and suggestions as to what you can do and/or how you should do it.

to:

There are some 'rules' and suggestions as to what you can do and/or how you should do it.

Changed line 8 from:

Between November 10 - November 16

to:

Between November 10 - November 16 \\

Changed lines 8-15 from:

Between November 10 November 16 - You will have the opportunity to enter a rebuttal if you wish, which will be read by at least the Associate Chair, and any others who may be involved in the final decision about your paper. However, there are some 'rules' and suggestions as to what you can do and/or how you should do it.

to:

Between November 10 - November 16 You will have the opportunity to enter a rebuttal if you wish, which will be read by at least the Associate Chair, and any others who may be involved in the final decision about your paper.

November 16. Rebuttals are due. No late rebuttals will be allowed.

However, there are some 'rules' and suggestions as to what you can do and/or how you should do it.

Changed lines 24-25 from:

Please note that the reviews/meta-review comments you have are only part of our decision-making process. Your paper, reviews and rebuttal may be seen by other Associate Chairs (and perhaps even additional reviewers), who may add their own review and/or comments as needed.

to:

Please note that the reviews/meta-review comments you have are only part of our decision-making process. Your paper, reviews and rebuttal may be seen by other Associate Chairs (and perhaps even additional reviewers), who may add their own review and/or comments, or may even raise new concerns as needed. Unfortunately, there is no time available for a 2nd rebuttal round.

Changed lines 22-28 from:
   There is no 2nd review process. Thus the decision
   process is largely based on the paper as submitted.  
   While you may suggest a few minor changes that you may make if the
   paper is accepted, promising major changes to papers
   requiring substantive revisions will likely not change the
   outcome. 
to:
   The decision-making  process is largely based on the paper as submitted.  While you may suggest a few minor changes that you may make in response to referee comments, promising major changes to papers requiring substantive revisions will likely not change the  outcome. 
Added lines 1-34:

THIS IS A DRAFT

Rebuttal instructions for submitter.

Dear CHI submitter. On November 10, you will be able to see all current reviews plus a meta-review comment concerning your ACM CHI submissions(s). To do this, log onto the precision conference system ( http://precisionconference.com/~sigchi ) and select submissions in progress.

Between November 10 November 16 - You will have the opportunity to enter a rebuttal if you wish, which will be read by at least the Associate Chair, and any others who may be involved in the final decision about your paper. However, there are some 'rules' and suggestions as to what you can do and/or how you should do it. 1. Rebuttals are limited in length to 5000 characters.
The system will not let you enter any more than this.

2. Do not include any URLs to extra or new material.
These will be disregarded.

3. Stick to the facts.
Rebuttals must address factual or substantive errors that authors feel a reviewer has made

4. You do not have to write a rebuttal.
Only write a rebuttal if it could realistically make a difference.

5. Realize that your paper will be judged 'as is'.
There is no 2nd review process. Thus the decision

   process is largely based on the paper as submitted.  
   While you may suggest a few minor changes that you may make if the
   paper is accepted, promising major changes to papers
   requiring substantive revisions will likely not change the
   outcome. 

Please note that the reviews/meta-review comments you have are only part of our decision-making process. Your paper, reviews and rebuttal may be seen by other Associate Chairs (and perhaps even additional reviewers), who may add their own review and/or comments as needed.

Finally, our goal was to have at least three reviews plus the tentative meta-review comment in place. The vast majority of submissions have this, but there are a few that do not. If your paper is one of the later, please address the reviews you have available to you.

Saul Greenberg and Scott Hudson
ACM CHI Papers Co-Chairs