write-rebuttallisted

# Write Rebuttal Distilled from Devi Parikh, Dhruv Batra & Stefan Lee, *How we write rebuttals* (https://deviparikh.medium.com/how-we-write-rebuttals-dc84742fece1). A rebuttal exists to **clarify and convince** — it is one stage in a deliberative scientific process, not a fight to win. Optimize it for the reader, not for venting. ## The one idea that governs everything **Two audiences, and beginners forget the second one:** 1. **Reviewers** — read your paper, may have forgotten details. Goal: clarify doubts, correct misunderstandings, push back on mischaracterizations, incorporate feedback. 2. **Area Chair / meta-reviewer** — likely has *not* read your paper closely and won't re-read it. Goal: show good-faith effort, give a fair summary, make it obvious each concern was addressed, flag bad-faith reviewing, and **help them decide.** > Most new researchers write only for (1). Writing for (2) is what moves decisions. > Think of it like debate: you convince the *judges* (AC), not your opponents. **The acceptance test for every response — the "neutral third-party" test:** Could someone who has *not* read your paper or the reviews tell, from your rebuttal alone, that the concern was addressed? If not, rewrite it (self-contained; Tip 8). ## Process (do these in order) 1. **Itemize** — put every reviewer comment/question/concern in a spreadsheet, one row each, columns per reviewer. Do this *first, ASAP*: it guarantees nothing is missed, surfaces shared concern