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>