rebuttal research paper example

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Rebuttal Sections

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This resource outlines the generally accepted structure for introductions, body paragraphs, and conclusions in an academic argument paper. Keep in mind that this resource contains guidelines and not strict rules about organization. Your structure needs to be flexible enough to meet the requirements of your purpose and audience.

In order to present a fair and convincing message, you may need to anticipate, research, and outline some of the common positions (arguments) that dispute your thesis. If the situation (purpose) calls for you to do this, you will present and then refute these other positions in the rebuttal section of your essay.

It is important to consider other positions because in most cases, your primary audience will be fence-sitters. Fence-sitters are people who have not decided which side of the argument to support.

People who are on your side of the argument will not need a lot of information to align with your position. People who are completely against your argument—perhaps for ethical or religious reasons—will probably never align with your position no matter how much information you provide. Therefore, the audience you should consider most important are those people who haven't decided which side of the argument they will support—the fence-sitters.

In many cases, these fence-sitters have not decided which side to align with because they see value in both positions. Therefore, to not consider opposing positions to your own in a fair manner may alienate fence-sitters when they see that you are not addressing their concerns or discussion opposing positions at all.

Organizing your rebuttal section

Following the TTEB method outlined in the Body Paragraph section, forecast all the information that will follow in the rebuttal section and then move point by point through the other positions addressing each one as you go. The outline below, adapted from Seyler's Understanding Argument , is an example of a rebuttal section from a thesis essay.

When you rebut or refute an opposing position, use the following three-part organization:

The opponent’s argument : Usually, you should not assume that your reader has read or remembered the argument you are refuting. Thus, at the beginning of your paragraph, you need to state, accurately and fairly, the main points of the argument you will refute.

Your position : Next, make clear the nature of your disagreement with the argument or position you are refuting. Your position might assert, for example, that a writer has not proved his assertion because he has provided evidence that is outdated, or that the argument is filled with fallacies.

Your refutation : The specifics of your counterargument will depend upon the nature of your disagreement. If you challenge the writer’s evidence, then you must present the more recent evidence. If you challenge assumptions, then you must explain why they do not hold up. If your position is that the piece is filled with fallacies, then you must present and explain each fallacy.

Download Factsheet

Select which journal factsheet to download:

Response Letters

How to write a response letter.

A benefit of publishing your review history is that other scholars, especially early career researchers, now have an example of how to respond to reviewer comments. Along with performing good peer-review, academic rebuttals tend to be things that get left out of traditional graduate school and post-doc training. Being able to read public academic response letters is an immensely valuable resource for this reason.

It's also important to keep in mind what a journal's editorial criteria are, and whether both the reviewers and authors have respected those boundaries. A response is an opportunity to review the editorial policies. Learn more about PeerJ's editorial criteria .

Continuing with the reviews of the PeerJ paper on the review benefits page, let's look at how the author, Associate Professor Rob Edwards , handled his response to some of the reviewer comments (or download the full response ).

We'll go over two aspects of writing a response letter:

• Structure or Format

Cover letter (Structure)

In each sample the review comments are in blue, while the author response is in yellow (add by us for emphasis, not the author).

Line-item responses and readability (Structure)

We're showing just one snippet above, but the author has copied all of the reviewer comments (reviewers 1 and 2) and pasted them into a new document. He has then addressed each point line by line. Also notice the reviewer comments have been italicized (or could have been bolded) and the author responses are non-italicized. This greatly helps the reviewers and academic editor to quickly scan the response letter making their volunteered job easier and hopefully a little more enjoyable!

Professional and Civil Responses (Content)

It doesn't hurt to remain civil, no matter how dramatic a reviewer may have been in their comments. Remember, the academic editor will also see the reviewer comments and know when they're being tough, but correct or just being plain uncivil. So, keep your author responses polite as well. In this case Dr. Edwards explicitly adds "Agree. Therefore I ..." or "Of course, you're right, so I've added..." and similar throughout his response. This is professional and the right way to respond to feedback.

Handling reviewer questions/confusion (Content)

There are two reasons a reviewer may be confused about something. Either they read it too quickly, or they were genuinely confused (by the writing style, the method chosen, etc). As an author you'll never know which of course, but it's likely that readers will be doing the same as well. Rather than debate that confusion, this may be an opportunity to expand the manuscript's discussion section. If the discussion is already lengthy then an explanation of the reason to the reviewer may be sufficient along with a short explanation of why you feel the longer discussion should not be added to the actual manuscript.

Responding to the 'additional experiments needed' request (Content)

The dreaded "I believe more experiments are required" reviewer request. The initial gut reaction is to scream expletives and shout out loud at the reviewer. Go ahead and do that. Go on, we'll wait for you. Now that you've got that out of your system you can proceed to how to respond in writing.

In this case there is no magical formula, you may actually need to perform additional validating experiments or similar. The main thing to check is - "Do your conclusions truly follow from the experiments and results previously performed? If not then you have two choices: 1) perform the additional experiments or 2) re-write your conclusions to be in line with the thresholds of experimental validity. Sometimes that could mean the paper is no longer worthy of publishing, in which case you've learned something. Hopefully a simple re-write or explanation of why an additional experiment is not needed or impossible is enough though.

Stay polite, remain professional

The most effective rebuttals are respectful and professional. Address the reviewers as you would like to be addressed yourself (no matter how much you might be tempted to 'get personal'!). For example, even if you think you have identified a recalcitrant anonymous reviewer never call out their name in your responses (especially as this document may become public via our open peer review program).

The key thing to remember in your responses is that a little politeness, consideration for confusion, and short explanation is usually all that is needed to satisfy publishing requirements. Editors and reviewers are just as busy as you, and everyone appreciates getting clear respectful answers to alleviate a busy schedule. For authors this usually translates into a more pleasurable peer-review process and almost guarantees a faster turn-around decision time.

In case you missed it, do check out the benefits of optional open review at PeerJ and how to perform a good peer-review .

• Benefits home
• Excellent reputation
• Broad audience
• Feature comparison
• High quality peer review
• Indexing and Impact Factor
• Early career researcher benefits
• Senior researcher benefits
• Fast publishing
• Reduced cost publishing
• Open review
• Response letters

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Rebuttal Letter After Rejection from a Journal

What is a Rebuttal Letter?

After submitting your manuscript to a journal (along with your journal submission cover letter ), journal editors might include some reasons in their response to the author explaining why the article was not immediately accepted in the journal and what the author must address to further prepare the article for re-submission.

The journal rebuttal letter allows an author to directly reply to the reviewers, explain how they will improve the work, clarify any misunderstandings, and/or justify aspects of the work that were mentioned in the review letter. How you write your rebuttal letter can make a big difference in whether or not an author is granted an appeal and how the reviewers respond to your specific rebuttal requests and comments.

Table of Contents

• An overview of the journal submission process and the key decisions made by editors, reviewers, and authors
• How to address editor and reviewer questions and comments
• How to handle rejection letters
• Useful phrases to include in journal submission rebuttal and appeal letters
• Annotated template rebuttal letter
• Checklist for preparing and submitting your revised manuscript
• List of additional resources

 Journal Submissions Process Overview

The journal submission process can be a bit like the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In particular, it might be similar to her learning how to play baseball. She walks up to home plate, determined to make a home run. She swings the bat.

“Strike one,” calls the umpire.

She tries again, but this time she taps the ball gently.

“Strike two!” the umpire says.

She’s got one more chance and isn’t sure what to do. What Goldilocks doesn’t realize is that swinging the bat too hard or too softly could yield the same result: she’s still stuck on home plate.

Likewise, submitting your research manuscript can be a hit or miss, depending on a few factors. It will take a few tries, but eventually, you will find the right match for your manuscript and hit that home run you’ve been dreaming of.

Until that moment comes, however, receiving rejections along the way can be stressful and frustrating. In this guide, we’d like to share a few tips with you on how to cope with rejection letters. That is,  we’ll explain the manuscript approval process and outline when and how you should appeal or rebut a rejection letter.

The bad news about journal submission

Let’s start with a brutally honest fact: submitting your manuscript to a journal and having it accepted the first time with little to no change is like trying to hit a home run in the World Series when you don’t even know how to hold a bat. In other words, it’s  not  impossible, but first submissions are rarely accepted, at least not without some revision.

The truth is, no matter how cleanly written a research manuscript might be, some of the more prestigious  journals reject close to 90% (if not more) of all submissions . Most rejected papers never even make it to the reviewers because the editors feel that the paper does not fit the journal’s current needs or the editors are not convinced by the research and methodology presented in the manuscripts. But don’t stop reading here. We do have good news for you!

The good news about journal submissions

Even though the submission process can be frustrating,  you can improve your odds of acceptance . In a  separate article ,  we emphasize following author guidelines, presenting a thoroughly developed experimental design, and structuring your findings to answer questions that would intrigue your target journal’s readers. In addition to these methods, you should also draft a strong cover letter. An effective submission cover letter will persuade editors to forward your paper to peer reviewers for further consideration.

If you make it past the editorial cut, you’ve made it to first base!    Once there, your paper’s success will depend on how peer reviewers react to your paper and how you respond to their comments.

What happens once your paper is submitted?

Before we explain how to respond to editor and peer feedback, we want to explain what happens to your paper once you submit your draft manuscript to the journal. Below is a flowchart that highlights the key decisions and actions that occur during the submission review process.

Baseball as a Metaphor for the Journal Submission Process

As you examine the image above, imagine that you’ve just warmed up and are now ready to bat. How you advance from home plate to each subsequent base will depend on the factors we discuss below.

• You’re up to Bat . You initiate the review process when you submit your draft manuscript to your target journal. Assuming that your bat makes contact with the pitched ball, the following are some milestones you’ll come across as you trek toward victory!
• Does your research paper meet the journal’s scope and aim?
• Will the paper interest the journal’s readers?
• Did the journal recently publish a similar article (and therefore doesn’t want to publish another of the same kind)?
• Did you follow submission guidelines provided in the journal’s formatting rules and Instructions for Authors?
• Are there any gaps in your research methodology ?

If the editors don’t think your paper matches their requirements, then your paper will be rejected flat out without undergoing peer review. Here, you have two choices: – submit to another journal; or – follow-up with an appeal to reconsider your paper for submission. [Unfortunately, this second option is highly unlikely. If you completely revamp your paper, then you should make a new submission altogether.]

• Does your methodology have flaws that can’t be ignored?
• Is your research incomplete?

If your reviewers don’t think your paper is up to par (especially if they feel your research is incomplete or your analysis is flawed), then your paper will be rejected. You have two choices: – submit to another journal; or – follow-up with an appeal to reconsider your paper for submission. [Unfortunately, this second option is highly unlikely. If you completely revamp your paper, then you should make a new submission altogether.] If your reviewers liked your paper but have several questions as is often the case), then they will recommend further consideration upon your satisfactory response to peer feedback (more on this below in the section “How to Respond to Peer Feedback”).

• Slide to Third Base . At this point, the editorial team has received your reply to their feedback and is satisfied with the changes–they are now convinced that your paper is suitable for publication. They may have a few follow-up questions, but these should require minimal changes to your edited manuscript . You’re about to score, and unless there are some issues like discovering that you falsified any information you provided, your paper will be published.

Stroll to Complete the Run ! The editors are ready to green-light the publication of your paper. They’ve made all the final edits and you’ve satisfied any remaining administrative matters before your article is published.

How to Respond to Reviewer Feedback

When you receive a response letter from an editor that isn’t a flat-out rejection, it will most likely also contain feedback asking for clarification and revision. These comments and questions will come from the editor and your reviewers. Positive feedback generally comes in two forms:

• The journal is interested in your paper, and the reviewers would like you to make some minor changes or additions to polish your article’s contents. This type of letter indicates you’ve hit a double, and it’s fairly smooth sailing from this point forward.
• You might receive a letter that rejects your paper but says that the journal would reconsider upon substantial revision, including the possible addition of new data. To use our baseball analogy, you’ve hit a single but didn’t quite make it as far as second base. You’re not out of the game, though. You quickly dash back to first base, and while there, you can work through editing your manuscript and conducting additional experiments, if necessary.

Regardless of how you make it to first or second base, journal acceptance will depend on how you answer the questions and comments noted in the editor’s letter. To that end,  when you write your rebuttal letter to the journal, keep the following points in mind .

How to Handle Rejection Letters from Journals

Sadly, rejection is a part of the academic publishing experience. As we stated above, sometimes editors reject your paper at no fault of your own. The frustrating part of this process is knowing that any appeal regarding a rejected article will most likely be put into a “slush pile” and  will only be considered after new submissions are reviewed .

As the author, consider  whether an appeal is worth the time and resources needed to overhaul your paper . Additionally, you could be waiting for several weeks or longer before the journal reviews your appeal. In that time, it might be more prudent to accept the feedback you have received, revise your paper, and submit the new draft to another journal.

If you decide to appeal, keep the following in mind.

 Useful Phrases to Include in a Rebuttal Letter

Below are a handful of phrases you might find useful to help explain how you revised your manuscript.

Preface to explanations

• Thank you for providing these insights.
• Thank you for your suggestion.
• That is an interesting query.
• This is an interesting perspective.
• We agree with you.
• We agree with your assessment.
• You have raised an important question.
• You have asked an interesting question.

 Expressing agreement with editor/reviewer comments

• We agree with you and have incorporated this suggestion throughout our paper.
• We have reflected this comment by… (p. #, lines #-#).
• We have incorporated your comments by… (p. #, lines #-#).
• We agree that…
• We have now [X] (p. #, lines #-#) and [Y] (p. #, lines #-#). We think these changes now better [Z]. We hope that you agree.

Expressing disagreement with editor/reviewer suggestion

• You have raised an important point; however, we believe that [X] would be outside the scope of our paper because…
• This is a valid assessment of…; however, we believe that [X] would be more appropriate because…
• We agree that…; however, due to [X], we believe that…
• In our revisions, we have attempted to [X] (p. #, lines #-#); however, we have retained some of our arguments because…
• We acknowledge that [X] has certain limitations; however,…

Expressing clarification

• We have clarified that… means… (p. #, lines #-#) throughout the paper.
• We have redrafted the [X] section (p. #, lines #-#) to establish a clearer focus.
• We have revised the text (p. #, lines #-#) to reflect…
• We removed [X] (from p. #, lines #-#) and hope that the deletion clarifies the points we attempted to make.
• We have replaced the term [X] throughout the paper with [Y] to use more precise terms.
• We have rewritten [X] (p. #, lines #-#) to be more in line with your comments. We hope that the edited section clarifies…
• We have elaborated on [X] (p. #, lines #-#) and expanded our consideration of [Y]. We hope these revisions provide a more [balanced][thorough] discussion.

Additional information or explanation

• We have included a new Figure # (p. #) to further illustrate…
• We have added a new Table # (p. #), which outlines…
• We have supplemented the [X] section with explanations of [Y] (p. #, lines #-#).
• There are multiple reasons/approaches to…, including [our scenario]. We have included an acknowledgment regarding this point in the [X] section (p. #, lines #-#).
• We have not done… However, we believe that [doing X] (p. #, lines #-#) would address this issue because…
• We have not done…; however, our sense is that…

Repeated responses (when one of your responses answers multiple comments)

• Please see point # above.  [e.g., “Please see point 2(a) above.”]  

Annotated Template Rebuttal Letter

[Click the link at the top of this page to download a Word version of this letter and the useful phrases from the section above.]

[Journal Editor’s First and Last Name][, Graduate Degree (if any)] TIP: It’s customary to include any graduate degrees in the addressee’s name. e.g.,  John Smith, MD or Carolyn Daniels, MPH e.g.,  Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Co-Editors-in-Chief 

[Journal Address] [Submission Date: Month Day, Year] Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. [Editor’s last name]:

TIP: When the editor’s name is not known, use the relevant title employed by the journal, such as “Dear Managing Editor:” or “Dear Editor-in-Chief:”. Using a person’s name is best, however. Also, websites may be outdated, so call the journal to confirm to whom you should address your cover letter when in doubt.

TIP: Use “Ms.” and never “Mrs.” or “Miss” in formal business letters.

TIP:  Never   use “Dear Sirs:” or any similar expression. Many editors will find this insulting, especially given that many of them are female!

Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled, “[TITLE]” to [JOURNAL]. We also appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper. Thus, it is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We also hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted.

To facilitate your review of our revisions, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter dated _____.

Editor’s Suggestions:

• RESPONSE:  [Brief response thanking editor or expressing delight at the feedback, where appropriate.]
• RESPONSE:  [General opinion of comment ( e.g. , “You raise an important question.”)][Response discussing changes or providing clarifications and explanations.]
• RESPONSE:  [General opinion of comment ( e.g. , “You make a fair assessment.”)][Response discussing changes or providing clarifications and explanations.]

Reviewer 1 Comments:

• RESPONSE:  [Show appreciation for time and energy reviewer committed and the value of their comments.]
• RESPONSE:  [General opinion of comment ( e.g. , “Thank you for this suggestion.”)] [Response discussing changes or providing clarifications and explanations.]
• RESPONSE:  [General opinion of comment ( e.g. , “Thank you for this suggestion.”)] [Response discussing changes or providing clarifications and explanations.]

Reviewer 2 Comments:

• [Show appreciation for time and energy reviewer committed and the value of their comments.]

CONCLUDING REMARKS : Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

[Your Name]

Corresponding Author Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name [Institution Address] [Your e-mail address] [Tel: (include relevant country/area code)] [Fax: (include relevant country/area code)]

Additional Contact  [should the corresponding author not be available] Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name [Institution Address] [Your e-mail address] [Tel: (include relevant country/area code)] [Fax: (include relevant country/area code)]

Rebuttal Letter Checklist

Substantive points

• Make a list of changes you mention in your letter and make sure you’ve made all the changes in your draft!
• Make sure you’ve thanked the editor and reviewers for their time.
• Make sure you are sending the right version of your manuscript
• Did you copy and paste ALL the original comments from the editor and reviewers? Did you answer or address ALL those comments?
• Did you include page and line references, where appropriate?
• Did you include all new figures and other visual aids (and mention them in the rebuttal letter)?
• Get manuscript editing services to polish your work and make your writing more compelling.

Technical points

• Set the font to Arial or Times New Roman, size 12 point.
• Single-space all text.
• Use one line space between body paragraphs.
• Do not indent paragraphs.
• Keep all text left justified.
• Use spelling and grammar check software. If needed, use professional proofreading and editing services  such as Wordvice to review your letter for clarity and concision.
• Double-check the spelling of the editor’s and reviewers’ names.

Additional Resources

• Nature  blog on  writing a rebuttal letter
• Nature  blog on  writing an appeal letter
• Elsevier blog on top three  tips for responding to reviewer feedback
• Further explanation of how reviewers view your research paper.
• https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ – rebuttal-letters
• https://aom.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/AMLE/Certo et al AMLE Responses to Reviewers.pdf
• http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n27/extref/onc200816x1.doc

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

A Guide to Rebuttals in Argumentative Essays

4-minute read

• 27th May 2023

Rebuttals are an essential part of a strong argument. But what are they, exactly, and how can you use them effectively? Read on to find out.

What Is a Rebuttal?

When writing an argumentative essay , there’s always an opposing point of view. You can’t present an argument without the possibility of someone disagreeing.

Sure, you could just focus on your argument and ignore the other perspective, but that weakens your essay. Coming up with possible alternative points of view, or counterarguments, and being prepared to address them, gives you an edge. A rebuttal is your response to these opposing viewpoints.

How Do Rebuttals Work?

With a rebuttal, you can take the fighting power away from any opposition to your idea before they have a chance to attack. For a rebuttal to work, it needs to follow the same formula as the other key points in your essay: it should be researched, developed, and presented with evidence.

Rebuttals in Action

Suppose you’re writing an essay arguing that strawberries are the best fruit. A potential counterargument could be that strawberries don’t work as well in baked goods as other berries do, as they can get soggy and lose some of their flavor. Your rebuttal would state this point and then explain why it’s not valid:

Read on for a few simple steps to formulating an effective rebuttal.

Step 1. Come up with a Counterargument

A strong rebuttal is only possible when there’s a strong counterargument. You may be convinced of your idea but try to place yourself on the other side. Rather than addressing weak opposing views that are easy to fend off, try to come up with the strongest claims that could be made.

In your essay, explain the counterargument and agree with it. That’s right, agree with it – to an extent. State why there’s some truth to it and validate the concerns it presents.

Step 2. Point Out Its Flaws

Now that you’ve presented a counterargument, poke holes in it . To do so, analyze the argument carefully and notice if there are any biases or caveats that weaken it. Looking at the claim that strawberries don’t work well in baked goods, a weakness could be that this argument only applies when strawberries are baked in a pie.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Step 3. Present New Points

Once you reveal the counterargument’s weakness, present a new perspective, and provide supporting evidence to show that your argument is still the correct one. This means providing new points that the opposer may not have considered when presenting their claim.

Offering new ideas that weaken a counterargument makes you come off as authoritative and informed, which will make your readers more likely to agree with you.

Summary: Rebuttals

Rebuttals are essential when presenting an argument. Even if a counterargument is stronger than your point, you can construct an effective rebuttal that stands a chance against it.

We hope this guide helps you to structure and format your argumentative essay . And once you’ve finished writing, send a copy to our expert editors. We’ll ensure perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, referencing, and more. Try it out for free today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a rebuttal in an essay.

A rebuttal is a response to a counterargument. It presents the potential counterclaim, discusses why it could be valid, and then explains why the original argument is still correct.

How do you form an effective rebuttal?

To use rebuttals effectively, come up with a strong counterclaim and respectfully point out its weaknesses. Then present new ideas that fill those gaps and strengthen your point.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

The benefits of using an online proofreading service.

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

3-minute read

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

The 5 Best Ecommerce Website Design Tools 

A visually appealing and user-friendly website is essential for success in today’s competitive ecommerce landscape....

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

How to Write a Good Paper Rebuttal

A practical guide, what is a rebuttal, anyway, is it worth working on a paper rebuttal, start positive, focus on major concerns, hack the word limit, but not too much…, make good use of tables, make new experiments, highlight the important points to all reviewers.

The rejection of a research paper is always a tough spot in the life of researchers. Today, many top conferences allow the authors of a rejected paper to submit a so-called “paper rebuttal.” This is a last chance for the authors to defend their work in case the reviewers made obvious mistakes or the arguments supporting the rejection are unclear. In this post, I explain under which circumstances it is worth writing a rebuttal. Moreover, I will cover practical tips to write a good rebuttal in case you decide not to give up on your paper. In this case, the objective is to write a rebuttal that has the highest chance to be read by the PC chairs. If this is what you want to do… keep reading!

A rebuttal is a way for the PC chairs to avoid committing clear unfairness to a paper. Once the authors receive negative reviews of their submission, they can write a response rebuttal to the reviewers’ comments. This response is entirely optional, and there is no requirement to respond or not. It is also enforced to be typically short (between 500 and 750 words), so that the PC chairs can scan it quickly.

“An imperfect but useful metaphor for rebuttals is debate competitions. Yes, we are trying to convince our opponent (and this is where the metaphor is imperfect; reviewers are not our opponents, but hang with us). But more importantly, we are trying to convince the judges, who will ultimately be making the decisions. Thus, all else being equal, it is more important to convince the judges of your arguments than change your opponents’ minds.” – Devi Parikh

The rebuttal must focus on the following:

• Answers to specific questions raised by reviewers (if any)
• Factual errors in the reviews

A rebuttal in academic conferences is not like a response to the reviewers’ comments in a journal. In a journal, you send a response to the reviewers and resubmit the paper for another revision. At a conference, you cannot make further changes in your paper after revision. So, you can only address the reviewers’ comments with arguments in the paper or data that you have that is not in the paper but that is relevant to support your argument.

In theory, each submission in a conference must be judged on its own merits. This means accepting a paper only if there is a general agreement that it meets the standards of the conference. In practice, total consensus and fairness are very difficult to achieve. For example, it can be hard for the organizers to guess who is the best person to review a particular paper. If the topic is too novel or the paper too original, the decision may be biased to the detriment of the paper.

To mitigate unfairness, many top conferences adopt a method called Identify the Champion . For a paper to be accepted, it helps if some PC Member “champions” it. The champion is an expert that is very enthusiastic about accepting a paper. If an expert reviewer really likes the paper, that dramatically increases its chances for acceptance. The champion must be a reviewer from PC Members who is recognized to be an expert (and not only competent) in the domain.

“As a rule of thumb: If there is at least one reviewer that is clearly in favor of accepting your paper (i.e., you have a champion), then you should do the rebuttal.”

If your paper doesn’t have a champion, it is very unlikely you will get it accepted in a major conference. It doesn’t matter how good your rebuttal is. And by the way, working on a rebuttal is hard work. So, assuming that you have a champion, the rebuttal should focus on one single goal: arm the champion!

Your champion will need solid arguments against its detractors in the final discussion, especially strong detractors. Refute every issue the detractors raised to give your champion extra arguments for acceptance. Lower the confidence in the detractors’ reviews by pointing out mistakes. A strong detractor can only be countered by a strong champion. Rather than trying to dissuade a strong detractor, your aim should be on arming the champion. I’ll explain how to do this in the rest of this post.

It is a good practice to start thanking the reviewers for their reviews, and directly pointing to their positive feedback. Thus, use around 50 words to summarize the reviews, highlighting the positive comments that reviewers made about your work. Rebuttals focus mostly on responding to negative points, don’t let everyone forget about the strengths of your work along the way.

Here’s an example:

Notice the conversational nature of the example responses above. The relaxed tone makes it easier for the PC chairs to read it. Remember that the rebuttal should not be perceived as being combative. You’re trying to convince very competent people about the quality of your work. So, don’t miss the opportunity to show your respect for the time they spent reviewing your paper.

Choose your comments wisely. Make sure to put the answers to the expert reviewers at the beginning of your rebuttal. Identify the major concerns of the detractors, especially the ones where the reviewer assumes you may not be able to improve the paper. If one of the reviewers’ negative comments is clearly wrong, then you should point at it only if it is significant for understanding the novelty of the paper.

“You do not need to convince the reviewer that you’re able to fix typos, straight-forward presentation issues, language issues, or anything else that can be fixed by simple proofreading. This is taken for granted.” – Andreas Zeller

A major concern is one that:

• Mistrusts the scientific contribution of the paper (its novelty, significance, etc.)
• Raise doubts about the scientific methodology employed (validation protocol, dataset, the model employed, etc.)

Sometimes, one primary concern that a reviewer spot is, on the other hand, considered a valuable contribution by another reviewer. In this case, use part of the arguments of the supportive reviewer in your favor without using her comment as the argument. The goal is to select the most relevant questions to answer, not encourage a conflict of opinions among reviewers.

As mentioned, the word limit (typically 750 words) is a strict limitation. You can use underscores ( _ ) or dashes ( - ) to concatenate two words for the less important things, such as the questions from reviewers.

Here is an example:

*NOTE: Be cautious not abusing of this method, otherwise you may be at risk that PC chair will just delete your rebuttal.

Most rebuttal handling systems are Markdown compatible. In Markdown format, one row is counted as one word. Therefore, using a table saves you word limits!

For example, the following table presents new data to the reviewers without significantly affecting the word count:

Note how there is a link to an external repository. Yes, adding links to data and experiments is a good idea in a rebuttal.

Adding new experiments to support the rebuttal is incredibly valuable. This ensures that the “lack of this experiment in the paper” is not the rejection reason. Also, if the results are valuable and convincing, it is clear that you have done a lot of work for the reviewers. Most people respect when somebody is working hard. So, adding new experiments will make your rebuttal considered more seriously by the PC chairs.

Always give the details of the methodology used in the experiment and the data to support your claim. Rather than argue with the reviewers, give them data and stats to back your claim up. These can be statistics analyses based on new data or results. Or the results of additional experiments you run to respond to their concern (if allowed by the venue).

Never claim that the reviewer has no idea what she is talking about, even if that is the case. It would be best if you were respectful and polite to the reviewers. Thank them for their suggestions and suggest fixing whatever is fixable even if you think nothing is wrong Every time you find yourself having a different opinion than the reviewer, ask if you can establish that with data. You can always provide intuitive arguments after settling the issue with data and new experiments.

Acknowledge good suggestions made by the reviewer. If those suggestions are easy to fix, say they are fixable and will be fixed in the final version. Don’t be afraid of emphasis: “Row 2 in Table 4 shows exactly that.” “We do NOT need a human-in-the-loop at test time.” Notice that many of the responses above are not just direct, but also have emphasis (in tone if not formatting of text).

At the end of the rebuttal, consolidate all the common concerns. You can also save space by responding to multiple reviewers at once if they share related concerns. This is important to help the reviewers understand other reviewers’ concerns!

If some reviewers’ comments do not make sense, you can showcase them here to discuss with all reviewers. In case a reviewer’s suggestion makes no sense or is not valid, explain why the argument is invalid. However, you should acknowledge that your paper might have a problem if all the reviewers did not get it right. Promise to clarify those issues for the final version.

Only go for a rebuttal if at least one reviewer supports the paper (i.e., you have a champion). The rebuttal should be thorough, direct, and easy for the reviewers to follow. If a reviewer really doesn’t like your paper, then it’s unlikely you can change his mind during the rebuttal phase. However, it’s just an excellent opportunity to address some particular concerns.

Keep your answer factual, polite, and constructive. For example, if a reviewer asks: “Isn’t your approach undecidable?,” then you can answer “yes/no,” and “we can include the proof in the final version of the paper” and link to a research report where the proof is already written. Or if a reviewer wrote: “this problem was already solved 20 years ago by Einstein,” then you can answer: “We released one of Einstein’s assumptions, that we believed was too strong for this particular context.” Always be confident in your work.

If there is a chance, catch it and do not give up. Conference rebuttal, journal response, rejection, and acceptance are all part of the research game. And you better learn how to play it well 😀.

• ← Previous Post
• Next Post →

Related Posts

Let's face it: paper figures are always subject to change, empirical software engineering research is harder than you think, shortening the distance between academia and industry.

Tips on Manuscript Resubmission: How to Write a Good Rebuttal Letter

Following from ‘ Five Tips for Writing a Good Rebuttal Letter ’, we revisit the theme of manuscript resubmission to academic journals. The initial feedback from editors and reviewer’s about one’s work can trigger a variety of reactions based on its analysis. While authors seek positive feedback in general, the more realistic expectation is to address the reviewer’s requests for revision. Methods of writing a rebuttal letter can determine if manuscript revision is likely to be successful or a futile attempt at resubmission. Should the editorial outcome be negative with equally critical referees, the recommendation is to provide an appeal letter first. However, authors who receive positive feedback can revise in compliance with comments, and submit revisions along with a rebuttal letter.

A Writing Guide – Do’s and Don’ts

A rebuttal letter offers authors an opportunity to address reviewer’s concerns directly, defend aspects of work, and eliminate contextual misunderstandings. This stepwise breakdown of writing a rebuttal letter aims to assist authors during the revision to ensure grant of appeal.

Step 1: Say Thank You

Acknowledge the reviewers time, comments and expertise. Thanking the reviewers sets a positive tone to begin with, providing the basis for an ongoing amicable exchange. Do not insinuate reviewer bias or incompetence. Prudent statements from the author cannot result in a positive re-evaluation of the work.

Step 2: Be Modest

Acknowledge any misunderstandings on your part including a poor presentation that may have led to reviewer’s confusion. Do not imply reviewer incompetence or lack of expertise in the phrasing of your rebuttal. Be clear, avoiding ambiguous and blank statements.

Step 3: Keep it Short

Respond to each reviewer’s individual comments, by copying the full text within your rebuttal letter . Strive to keep answers brief, succinct and well versed. Explain how you intend to revise the concerns either experimentally or editorially. Do not plead for reconsideration based on lack of funding as one of the reasons surrounding your inability to complete key experiments. Original scientific articles require the full spectrum of research, and the inability to meet reviewer requests experimentally is not viable.

Step 4: Explain Everything

If data required is available as a supplementary article, which the reviewer may have missed, explain this in your rebuttal for clarity. If you are unable to address a point raised in the reviewer comments, explain your reasons for evasion. Do not blatantly ignore reviewer comments, while selectively answering a few.

Step 5: Major Comments and Minor Comments

Often authors receive feedback on their manuscript from the editorial and reviewers as ‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ comments. If reviewer comments deviate from the typical format, categorize the comments provided relative to your work, as major and minor:

• Major comments: delineate major comments based on its relevance to the integral scientific or academic content of your manuscript.
• Minor comments: concern data presentation, table formatting, suggested changes to figures and citation errors, including comments on syntax errors.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

How Academic Editors Can Enhance the Quality of Your Manuscript

Avoiding desk rejection Detecting language errors Conveying your ideas clearly Following technical requirements

Common English Translation Mistakes in Academic Writing

Language and Grammar Rules Accurate word choice Maintaining factual correctness Optimizing sentence structure

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

While burning the midnight oil during literature review, most researchers do not realize that the…

How to Avoid Rejections Due to Language Mistakes

Common language errors Application of English grammar Importance of professional editing Enago services for ESL…

• Global Spanish Webinars

Errores comunes al escribir un abstract científico y cómo evitarlos

Consejos para redactar un abstract Tipos de abstracts Uso de palabras clave Errores comunes

10 Common Statistical Errors to Avoid When Writing Your Manuscript

Why Are Manuscript Revisions Necessary?

Finished Submitting a Journal Manuscript: What’s Next?

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?