本文是一份非常全面和实用的指南，用于解读和回应国际学术会议论文的同行评议意见。遵循这些步骤可以显著提高你论文被接受的概率，并展现你作为一名严谨研究者的专业素养。
第一部分：如何正确解读评议意见
在着手回复之前，深刻理解审稿人的意图至关重要。
1. 保持积极和专业的心态
不要视为人身攻击：评议是针对你的工作，而不是你个人。审稿人付出时间阅读你的论文，目的是帮助改进它。
意见是免费的专家咨询：即使是最严厉的批评，也通常指出了你论文中真正的弱点或模糊之处。
“拒绝”不等于“失败”：很多顶级会议录取率很低，“拒绝”但附带详细修改意见是非常有价值的，你可以据此改进论文并投往别处。
2. 对意见进行分类和解析
将审稿人的意见进行分解，理解其核心要求：
按类型分：
实质性批评：关于方法缺陷、实验设计不合理、创新性不足等核心问题。这是需要全力应对的。
澄清请求：指出某些部分表述不清、逻辑跳跃、术语未定义。通常容易解决。
技术性错误：公式错误、图表不清、参考文献遗漏、语法错误等。最容易修改。
建议和未来工作：指出研究的局限性或可能的扩展方向。可以部分在论文中讨论，并感谢审稿人的建议。
按态度分（判断审稿人的倾向）：
积极建设性：审稿人喜欢你的工作，但希望它更好。认真回应所有点，他们会支持你。
中立怀疑性：审稿人看到了价值，但有重大疑虑。你的目标是通过回复和修改，消除他们的所有疑虑。
消极否定性：审稿人可能不理解或不喜欢你的方向。你需要用极其清晰、有理有据的逻辑来捍卫你的工作，如果无法说服他，也要说服程序委员会主席（AC）。
第二部分：如何撰写高质量的回复函
回复函是你与审稿人沟通的唯一渠道，其质量直接影响最终结果。
1. 基本结构与礼仪
开头致谢：首先感谢审稿人付出的时间和提出的宝贵意见。
例如：“We thank the reviewers for their time and insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the paper.”
整体结构：对每位审稿人（R1, R2, ...）的每条意见进行逐点回复。
语气：始终保持尊重、礼貌和专业的语气。即使你不同意审稿人的观点，也要冷静、客观地陈述理由。
2. 逐点回复的“黄金法则”
对每一条意见，都遵循以下结构：
原文引用审稿人意见
例如：Reviewer 1, Comment 1: “The motivation of this work is not clear. Why is problem X important”
首先表示理解和感谢（如果适用）
例如：We thank the reviewer for this important comment.
清晰说明你所做的修改
这是回复的核心！明确告诉审稿人你在论文的哪个部分（第几页、第几段）做了什么修改。
例如：Following the reviewer's suggestion, we have added a new paragraph in Section 1 (Page 3) to clarify the motivation and practical significance of problem X. We now state that...
引用修改后的原文（如果改动很大或很关键）
对于关键修改，可以直接将修改后的句子或段落粘贴在回复中，让审稿人一目了然。
例如：The added text is: “The problem of X is critical in domain Y because... This has been a long-standing challenge due to...”
3. 针对不同类型意见的回复策略
对于你同意的意见（绝大多数情况）：
明确表示同意，并详细说明你如何修改。
示例：
意见： “Figure 2 is hard to read. Please use different colors.”
回复： We agree. We have revised Figure 2 by using a more distinct color scheme and increasing the font size, as suggested. The new figure is on Page 5.
对于你部分同意或需要澄清的意见：
先承认审稿人观点的合理性，然后礼貌地解释你的立场或原意，并说明你如何修改以消除误解。
示例：
意见： “The proposed method seems to be just a simple combination of A and B.”
回复： We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that our method builds upon A and B. However, the key novelty lies in the novel fusion mechanism C, which effectively resolves the incompatibility between A and B. To clarify this, we have added a dedicated subsection in Section 3 (Page 6) titled “Novelty of Our Fusion Mechanism” to elaborate on this contribution.
对于你不同意的意见（谨慎处理！）：
绝对不要直接反驳，如“You are wrong”。
首先感谢审稿人提出这个观点。
然后，用事实、数据、引用文献或严格的逻辑来冷静地解释你的理由。
如果可能，在论文中做一点小的补充说明，以照顾到审稿人的关切。
示例：
意见： “I think comparing with Algorithm Z is necessary.”
回复： We thank the reviewer for suggesting the comparison with Algorithm Z. We fully understand its relevance. However, Algorithm Z is designed for a slightly different setting (it requires condition W, which does not hold in our case). Therefore, a direct comparison would be unfair. We have now added a discussion in Section 5 (Page 10) to clarify the differences in problem settings and explain why a comparison with Z is not included. We will consider it for future work under a broader experimental setup.
第三部分：一个完整的回复示例
投稿： My Great AI Paper
回复致： 程序委员会主席和审稿人
---
Response to Reviewers
We thank the program chairs and all the reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback. We have carefully reviewed all comments and revised our manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the comments. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue.
---
Reviewer 1 (Summary: Positive)
The reviewer appreciates the novel idea but raises some concerns about evaluation.
Comment R1-1: “The introduction is a bit lengthy and could be more focused.”
Response: We agree. We have streamlined the introduction by removing two background paragraphs and focusing more on the problem statement. The revised introduction is now on Page 1.
Comment R1-2: “The experiment on dataset D is missing. It's a standard benchmark.”
Response: We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have now included experiments on dataset D. The results, presented in the new Table 4 on Page 8, show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on this benchmark, further strengthening our claims.
---
Reviewer 2 (Summary: Critical but Constructive)
The reviewer has significant concerns about the technical soundness.
Comment R2-1: “The claim in Section 3.2 seems too strong without theoretical proof.”
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have toned down the claim from “proves” to “suggests” on Page 5. Furthermore, we have added a theoretical analysis in Appendix A, which provides a proof under common assumptions, showing that our claim indeed holds.
Comment R2-2: “I am not convinced by the superiority over method B. The improvement is only 1%.”
Response: We understand the reviewer's concern. While the average improvement is 1%, the key advantage of our method is its robustness. We have added a new analysis in Section 4.3 (Page 9) showing that our method's performance has a much lower standard deviation across different data splits compared to Method B, which we argue is a significant practical advantage.
---
最后总结
1. 态度决定一切：将评审视为合作而非对抗。
2. 回复务必详尽：不要假设审稿人会去论文里找你的修改。直接指出来。
3. 覆盖所有意见：不要故意忽略任何一条意见，无论你觉得它多么不重要。
4. 时间管理：留出足够的时间来撰写和修改回复函，它和修改论文本身同样重要。
遵循这份指南，你将能专业、有效地应对同行评议，最大限度地提升论文的接受机会。
