commit 0a3a035cc794a63af63c86c0c68decfdb2d808f2
Author: Mark Claypool <claypool@cs.wpi.edu>
Date:   Mon Aug 8 13:58:58 2022 -0400

    Updates

diff --git a/rebuttal.md b/rebuttal.md
index b8698e2..52c7f91 100644
--- a/rebuttal.md
+++ b/rebuttal.md
@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
-# Writing a Rebuttal
+---
+pagetitle: Writing a Rebuttal
+version: 0.9
+---
 
-v0.9
+# Writing a Rebuttal
 
 Steps:
 

commit 4e4f38d8f09f6a9ac22d65dcf35de5fe560cec9a
Author: Mark Claypool <claypool@cs.wpi.edu>
Date:   Wed Feb 17 13:07:40 2021 -0500

    Updates

diff --git a/rebuttal.md b/rebuttal.md
index 6766c99..b8698e2 100644
--- a/rebuttal.md
+++ b/rebuttal.md
@@ -47,26 +47,23 @@ respond to, use those exact concerns, and in that exact order, to
 structure the rebuttal. Use those point names and numbers, if they
 have them.  Favor brevity and directness in your responses.
 
-Thanks the reviewers and acknowledge good comments.  Don't
-argue directly, but persuade.
+Tips:
 
-Offer concrete changes that are responsive to reviewers' comments.  If
-short on related work, put in a paragraph or two that relate your work
-to the papers the reviewers suggested were missing.
+a. Thank the reviewers and acknowledge good comments.  Agree with your
+   reviewers.  Don't argue directly, but persuade.
 
-Tips:
+b. Offer concrete changes that are responsive to reviewers' comments.
+   If short on related work, put in a paragraph or two that relate
+   your work to the papers the reviewers suggested were missing.
 
-a. Read your reviews with another coauthor and have an in-depth
+c. Read your reviews with another coauthor and have an in-depth
    discussion.
 
-b. Do not say that the draft will be improved with a major change.
+e. Do not say that the draft will be improved with a major change.
 
-c. Specify how the camera ready version will be reflected based on the
+f. Specify how the camera ready version will be reflected based on the
    reviewer's request.
 
-d. Agree with your reviewers. 
-
-
 ## Links
 
 Writing Rebuttals (Niklas Elmqvist): <https://tinyurl.com/y59v7kks>  

commit c66d779a80f46ddbe4ef374763b52e0ea8e7676c
Author: Mark Claypool <claypool@cs.wpi.edu>
Date:   Fri Nov 20 07:16:30 2020 -0500

    Updates

diff --git a/rebuttal.md b/rebuttal.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6766c99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rebuttal.md
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Writing a Rebuttal
+
+v0.9
+
+Steps:
+
+1. Read all reviews in detail
+
+2. Copy out all statements that have questions, criticism, suggestions
+   for improvement from each review
+
+3. For each of these statement make a short version (bullet points,
+   short sentence) in your own words
+
+4. Sort the all the extracted statements by topic
+
+5. Combine all statements that address the same issue
+
+6. Order the combined statements according to priority (highest
+   priority to primary reviewer)
+
+7. For each combined statement decide if the criticism is justified,
+   misunderstood, or unjustified
+
+8. CORE: make a response for each combined statement
+
+9. Create a rebuttal that addresses as many points as possible,
+   without being short (trade-off in the number of issue to address
+   and detail one can give)
+
+There are three basic options:
+
+A. If justified: acknowledge that this is an issue and propose how to
+   fix it
+
+B. If misunderstood: explain again and propose you will improve the
+   explanation in the final version
+
+C. If unjustified: explain that this point may be disputed and provide
+   additional evidence why you think it should be as it is
+
+The easiest and most effective way is to make your rebuttal a
+pragmatic and directed document.  Use the reviewers' own words to help
+them remember their feedback, and respond to that feedback
+directly. If the primary reviewer (1AC) gave a list of concerns to
+respond to, use those exact concerns, and in that exact order, to
+structure the rebuttal. Use those point names and numbers, if they
+have them.  Favor brevity and directness in your responses.
+
+Thanks the reviewers and acknowledge good comments.  Don't
+argue directly, but persuade.
+
+Offer concrete changes that are responsive to reviewers' comments.  If
+short on related work, put in a paragraph or two that relate your work
+to the papers the reviewers suggested were missing.
+
+Tips:
+
+a. Read your reviews with another coauthor and have an in-depth
+   discussion.
+
+b. Do not say that the draft will be improved with a major change.
+
+c. Specify how the camera ready version will be reflected based on the
+   reviewer's request.
+
+d. Agree with your reviewers. 
+
+
+## Links
+
+Writing Rebuttals (Niklas Elmqvist): <https://tinyurl.com/y59v7kks>  
+SIGCHI Rebuttals (Albrecht Schmidt): <https://tinyurl.com/y22q2n7q>  
+Writing CHI Rebuttals (Gene Golovchinsky): <https://palblog.fxpal.com/?p=5001>  
+How to Write SIGCHI Rebuttals (Hyunyoung Song): <https://tinyurl.com/yxz8rk69>