Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

[R] [ICLR] Is it okay to reference an answer to another reviewer in a reviewer's response? (alien.top)

submitted 10 months ago by howtorewriteaname@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am writing the responses to my reviewers for the ICLR. I had two reviewers asking a very similar question, and I'm wondering whether it is good to say to one of them something like "please refer to answer (4) in my response to reviewer xxxx" and then continue to tailor my answer to this reviewer, based on the reasoning offered in (4) for reviewer xxxx. Is this valid or should I just copy/paste the answer?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] UnusualClimberBear@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Do as you prefer, yet don't expect too much reviewers to change their minds. In my experience it works better to write the rebuttal as something directed to the AC, extra points if you can have an AC reaction.

[–] howtorewriteaname@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How does one write towards the AC?

[–] UnusualClimberBear@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Highlight misunderstanding and contradictions of the review. Keep it short if you have strong parts in your answers. Answering all the small details often leads to exchange of messages so long that the AC will skip them and directly read the paper.