iros-author-response

IROS Author Response

Use this after IROS reviews arrive — and, crucially, before submission too, because IROS traditionally

offers no rebuttal. The reviews come with the decision, so the "response" is spread across three real

channels: pre-answering in the paper, editing the camera-ready, and, if rejected or on the journal route,

a response letter or resubmission memo. Confirm the current cycle's policy before assuming a rebuttal

window does or does not exist.

Channel 1: pre-answer before you submit

The most effective IROS author response is written before anyone reviews the paper. Anticipate the

standard objections and disarm them in the body and the video:

• "Did it really work?" → shown, uncut trials plus a labeled failure in the video.
• "Is it reliable or cherry-picked?" → trial counts, resets, and a failure taxonomy in the body.
• "Does sim imply real?" → a stated sim-to-real gap, not an implied zero.
• "Is the baseline fair?" → same-platform baseline with comparable tuning.

Channel 2: the camera-ready revision

When the decision is accept (often with requested changes), the meta-review is your instruction set.

Integrate its asks without inflating the contribution beyond what was reviewed.

| Meta-review ask | Camera-ready move | Trap to avoid |

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

| "Report failure cases" | Add the failure taxonomy table you logged | Do not add new claims the reviewers never saw |

| "Clarify the compute budget" | State measured rate and power on the robot | Do not quietly change the reported system |

| "Compare to system X" | Add the same-platform comparison if you have it | Do not fabricate a comparison you did not run |

| "Fix anonymized links" | Replace with the public, licensed release | Do not leave "code coming soon" |

Channel 3: RA-L response letters and resubmission memos

• If your work is on the RA-L journal pathway, that review does have response letters: answer each

point, quote the change, and cite the revised line — a very different discipline from the no-rebuttal

conference.

• If the IROS paper is rejected, write a short internal resubmission memo: which objections were

evidence gaps (fixable with a run), which were framing, and which venue (next ICRA, CoRL, or RA-L) the

revised paper best fits.

Micro-example: turning a rejection into a plan

Reviewers rejected a manipulation paper for "insufficient real-robot evidence." The memo:

1. Name the gap precisely — 20 trials on 3 objects is too thin for the reliability claim.
2. Scope the fix — 120 trials across 15 objects with a logged failure taxonomy.
3. Choose the target — RA-L (for revision cycles) or the next ICRA (for the spring deadline).
4. Decide the video re-cut — add a labeled failure to pre-answer the same objection.

Response draft skeleton (camera-ready or RA-L letter):
  [Point] <reviewer/meta-review concern>
  [Change] <exact edit or added table/figure>
  [Location] <section / table / line in the revised paper>
  [Not added] <new claims deliberately withheld to stay within review scope>

Output format

[Channel] pre-submission / camera-ready / RA-L letter / resubmission memo
[Priority concern] <the objection that most threatens acceptance>
[Response] <IROS-appropriate, scoped, anonymity-safe>
[Evidence anchor] <paper/video/log item>
[Forbidden] <new unsupported claims / identity leaks / fabricated comparison>