Professor Fish

Deleting this post as it superseded by newer updates.

This post is concerned with this overall question: How to make good use of reviews for a rejected conference paper? The obvious answer is presumably something like this: Extract TODOs from the reviews. Do you work. Resubmit. In this post, I'd like to advocate an additional element: Write a commentary on the reviews. Why would you respond on reviews for a rejected conference paper? Here are the reasons I can think of: R1 :  You received a review that is clearly weak and you want to complain publicly . I recommend against this complaint model. It is unfriendly with regard to the conference, the chairs, and the reviewers. If one really needs to complain, then one should do this in a friendly manner by direct communication with the conference chair. R2 : You spot factual errors in an otherwise serious review and you want to defend yourself publicly . There is one good reason for doing this. Just write it off your chest. There is two good reasons for not doing ...