Here are the templates and strategies for these two very different scenarios.
Scenario A: The Reviewer Increases the Score 🎉
Goal: Lock in the win. Show gratitude without being arrogant. Acknowledge that their feedback is what made the paper better (this validates their effort).
What to write:
Title: Thank you for the re-evaluation and support
We sincerely thank you for reconsidering your score and for your constructive engagement throughout the rebuttal process. We are glad that the [mention the specific fix, e.g., new quantitative XAI metrics / corrected theoretical proofs / expanded baselines] have successfully addressed your concerns.
Your feedback has significantly strengthened the paper, particularly in [mention one specific area, e.g., rigor and reproducibility]. We are committed to maintaining these improvements in the final version of the manuscript.
Why this works: It confirms to the Area Chair (AC) that the reviewer is satisfied and that you have committed to the changes.
Scenario B: The Reviewer Does Not Reply 🦗
Goal: This is tricky. You are writing this for the Area Chair (AC), not really for the reviewer. You need to summarize your defense so the AC sees that you did the work, even if the reviewer ghosted you.
Strategy:
- The “Gentle Nudge” (2-3 days before deadline): If there is still time, send a polite follow-up.
- The “Closing Summary” (Last day of discussion): If they never replied, post a final comment summarizing your fixes.
Option 1: The Gentle Nudge (If there is still time)
Title: Follow-up on Rebuttal
As the discussion period is drawing to a close, we wanted to briefly check if our previous response and the new [mention key addition, e.g., weight drift analysis] fully addressed your concerns regarding [Weakness X].
We are happy to provide any further clarifications if needed.
Option 2: The Closing Summary (If the deadline is here and they never replied)
Title: Summary of Revisions regarding your review
We thank you for your initial review and the time spent evaluating our work. As the discussion period closes, we wanted to summarize how we have addressed the key weaknesses you identified, for the benefit of the final decision process:
- Regarding [Weakness 1]: We have added [Experiment A] which demonstrates…
- Regarding [Weakness 2]: We have corrected the [Theorem/Proof] to address the issue of…
We believe these revisions resolve the concerns raised in your initial review and hope they clarify the contribution of our work.
Why this works:
- It is polite (never complain that they didn’t reply).
- It highlights that you did the work.
- It creates a “last word” record for the AC, showing that the criticisms in the original review are effectively “outdated” because you fixed them.