icde-author-response

ICDE Author Response

Use this after ICDE reviews arrive. Reopen the current call's review-and-revision instructions

before drafting, because ICDE's outcome model — and whether a Revise & Resubmit exists this

edition — is edition-specific (待核实 for the current cycle).

Two response genres

ICDE can hand you either of two response tasks; identify which one you have before writing.

1. A rebuttal to initial reviews (where the process offers one) — a short, factual reply

that corrects errors and answers the decision-critical objection per reviewer.

1. A revise-and-resubmit change document — when the first reviewing phase returns

Revise & Resubmit (ICDE 2026 model), you get roughly four weeks to make concrete

changes, re-reviewed by the same reviewers before a final Accept/Reject.

Triage (both genres)

• Answer concerns that affect correctness, novelty, evaluation soundness, or reproducibility

first; cosmetic complaints last.

• Because ICDE is single-blind, you may cite your own prior work and name your system

freely — there is no anonymity to protect in the reply.

• Anchor every answer to concrete evidence: a paper section, an added experiment, a disclosed

cost, or a specific edit — not a promise.

• Correct factual misreadings before conceding anything; a reviewer who misread Figure 7

should be pointed to the exact panel, courteously.

The revision change document

For an invited revision, build a requirement ledger the same reviewers can check line by

line:

1. Extract every required and suggested change into a numbered list, tagged by reviewer.
2. For each, decide: done (point to the new text/figure), partially done (state the limit

honestly), or infeasible in four weeks (say so and explain).

1. Write the change document so a reviewer can verify each item without hunting — quote the new

sentence, name the new figure, give the section.

1. Do not smuggle in scope changes the reviewers did not ask for; an invited revision is judged

against its list, and surprise additions read as evasion.

Systems-reviewer pushback patterns

| Pushback | What it signals | ICDE-ready fix |

|---|---|---|

| "Baseline X is untuned" | The reviewer suspects an unfair comparison | Report the tuning budget you gave X, or re-run it tuned and show the new numbers |

| "Results are single-point" | No scale or variance shown | Add a scale curve and report variance across runs, not one median |

| "Cost of the mechanism is hidden" | The trade-off is not disclosed | Add the memory/bandwidth/latency cost table so the trade is legible |

| "Only synthetic workloads" | Doubt about real-world relevance | Add a real workload, or scope the claim to the regime you actually tested |

| "Prior system Y already does this" | Novelty challenge | Name the specific mechanism difference and, if possible, compare against Y directly |

Feasibility discipline

• Before promising a demanded experiment, price it against the four-week window and your

hardware access; a revision plan you cannot finish is worse than an honest partial.

• One decision-critical resolution per reviewer beats an exhaustive reply; the area chair reads

for whether the central objection was actually answered.

• Reply and revise early — the window is short and same-reviewer re-review rewards clarity over

volume.

Output format

[Genre] rebuttal / revise-and-resubmit change document
[Priority issue] <reviewer concern>
[Decision dimension] correctness / novelty / evaluation / reproducibility
[Draft response] <ICDE-ready text with evidence anchors>
[Requirement ledger] <numbered change -> done/partial/infeasible, per reviewer>
[Feasibility check] <fits the 4-week window? y/n + why>