The goal of the rebuttal/response process is to help ensure that paper submissions receive a fair and accurate assessment:
Rebuttals will be text only and limited to 4,000 characters. Responses exceeding 4,000 characters will not be reviewed. Authors are reminded that links to external material are not allowed to be included in the rebuttal. This includes links to code repositories. In the rebuttal, authors can indicate their intention to make code available after acceptance. Please note that anonymity should be maintained during the rebuttal process, and breaking it at this stage can result in rejection.
An effective rebuttal focuses on the major issues raised in the reviews. These should be addressed before responding to minor points. By prioritizing and grouping multiple reviewer comments that generally pertain to the same issue into a few major categories, you demonstrate that you understand the primary concerns of reviewers.
It is recommended that you summarize or paraphrase the issue before you address it, and clearly indicate to which comment(s) you are responding. While the space for rebuttal is limited, if properly utilized by condensing the response down to the essentials, this is an effective way to show that you understood the reviewers' concerns and have valid answers to the questions raised in the reviews, or to establish that certain reviewer comments were incorrect or unsubstantiated.
An effective rebuttal addresses reviewers' criticisms by explaining where in the paper you had provided the requisite information, and perhaps further clarifying it.
New/additional experimental results in the rebuttal are not allowed, and breaking this rule is grounds for automatic desk rejection. It is, however, allowed to amend the presentation of existing results. Please note that the final paper decision will be made based on the content of the submitted manuscript and not any promised changes in the rebuttal. If accepted, authors are not allowed to make substantial changes to the fundamental content of the paper, including experiments, data, and analysis.
In the case that a reviewer requests specific, additional experiments or results as part of the rebuttal, Area Chairs are instructed to ignore those requests and not to penalize rebuttals that adhere to the rebuttal guidelines. Authors may instead address such concerns primarily based on the content of the submitted paper. For example, authors may want to acknowledge suggestions for further experiments and consider them for future work. Authors may also decide to refute a request by making a case why a requested experiment is not necessary to judge their presented contributions.
Finally, an effective rebuttal should remain polite and professional. If you believe a review was discourteous or included incorrect or unsubstantiated claims, you can clearly and concisely address them in your rebuttal.