Icassp author response

ICASSP Author Response

Use this after ICASSP reviews are released. First confirm whether the current cycle even runs a rebuttal: ICASSP historically had no author-response stage, and a short window is a comparatively recent addition (in the 2026 cycle authors could reply until ~22 December 2025). Reopen the current call before promising reviewers anything.

What the rebuttal is and is not

• It is a short, text-based reply to the reviews, not a chance to upload a revised PDF or new experiments. Argue from what you already submitted.
• ICASSP is single-blind, so the reviewers know your identity; write professionally and do not attempt to re-establish anonymity or drop identifying hints to sway a reviewer.
• The audience is the area/technical-committee decision: give whoever aggregates the reviews a clean reason to accept, not a point-by-point defense that wins arguments but not the paper.

Triage before drafting

1. Separate factual errors in the review (a metric misread, a missed baseline that is in the paper) from legitimate gaps (a missing comparison, an unreported condition).
2. Fix the factual errors first with an exact pointer: "Table 2, row 3 already reports this."
3. For real gaps, concede cleanly and scope a camera-ready clarification that adds no unsupported new claim — the four pages you submitted are the evidence of record.
4. Rank concerns by decision weight; one resolved correctness objection outranks five answered style notes.

Signal-processing reviewer pushback patterns

Pushback	What it signals	ICASSP-ready fix
"The baseline is not the current strong method"	Reviewer knows the task's state of the art	Name the specific stronger baseline you did compare, or concede and scope it for camera-ready
"Which SNR / condition does this hold at?"	The reported number hides its operating point	Point to the sweep or table cell; if only one condition was tested, say so plainly
"Metric is not the one this task uses"	Measurement mismatch (e.g., accuracy where SI-SDR belongs)	Report the field-standard metric if you have it, or explain why yours is defensible
"No significance / spread over runs"	One-seed result	Cite the multi-run spread if present; otherwise concede it as a limitation
"This is a known result / prior art"	Novelty challenge	Cite the exact delta versus the named prior work in one sentence

Drafting pattern

1. Open with the single most decision-critical correction or concession.
2. Anchor each point to an exact location in the submitted paper (table, figure, equation, line).
3. State the signal-processing consequence, not just the fact.
4. Promise only camera-ready wording or clarification fixes that stay within the accepted claim.

Micro-example

Reviewer objection: the enhancement gain is reported only at one SNR, so the improvement may not generalize. Reply skeleton:

1. Concede the main table fixes SNR at one value for space.
2. Point to Fig. 3, which already sweeps 0-15 dB and shows the gain persists.
3. Note the trend is monotone, so the single-SNR table is representative, not cherry-picked.
4. Offer one camera-ready sentence stating the operating range explicitly.

Calibration for a short window

• Reply early; ICASSP rebuttal windows are brief and a late, exhaustive reply is worth less than a prompt, precise one.
• Do not paste new derivations or fresh result tables the reviewers cannot verify against the submitted PDF.
• Keep within any stated length/format cap; if none is stated, be concise anyway — committee members read many rebuttals in one sitting.

Output format

[Rebuttal exists?] yes (dates) / no this cycle / unverified
[Priority issue] <reviewer concern>
[Decision dimension] correctness / novelty / evidence / clarity / metric-fit
[Draft response] <ICASSP-ready text, anchored to submitted paper>
[Evidence anchor] <table/figure/equation/line>
[Camera-ready promise] <scoped fix that adds no new claim>

Currency note

The 2026 rebuttal window (reported open to ~22 December 2025) was checked 2026-07-09 via official-page renderings (see ../../resources/official-source-map.md). Whether a rebuttal recurs, and its dates and length, are cycle-specific — verify on the current call before drafting.