---

name: sigir-author-response description: Use when reviews arrive for a SIGIR submission and the authors must decide how to answer — triaging IR-reviewer objections (weak baselines, missing significance tests, collection choice), writing within whatever response mechanism the current SIGIR cycle actually offers, and planning the resubmission path if the answer is no.

SIGIR Author Response

First establish what response channel exists this cycle. SIGIR does not have a famous institutionalized rebuttal ritual the way ICLR or KDD do, and whether a given edition runs an author-response or discussion phase for full/short papers was not verifiable for 2026 (待核实 — check the track page and the OpenReview timeline of your own submission). This skill therefore covers three situations: a real response window, no window at all, and the post-rejection letter.

Situation 1: the cycle offers a response window

Treat it as a precision instrument, not a second paper. SIGIR reviewers are IR methodologists; the objections cluster predictably, and each cluster has a strongest honest answer:

Objection cluster	Weak reply	Strong reply
"Baselines are outdated / not tuned"	"We will add X"	Name the tuning protocol already in the paper (grid, budget, dev split) and cite the table row proving parity of effort
"No significance testing"	"Differences are large"	Report the paired test you ran (test, correction, p or CI) with exact table coordinates; if you truly didn't run one, concede and state what you will report
"Only one collection"	"Others are future work"	Explain the claim's scope: which property of the collection the claim depends on, and why generalization is or is not asserted
"Metric choice hides the effect"	Defend the metric abstractly	Show the effect on the reviewer's preferred metric if it is computable from your runs — run files make this a one-line answer
"This is a known result"	Assert novelty	Contrast mechanisms against the specific cited paper: what it does, what yours does, what breaks if the delta is removed

Rules of engagement:

• Answer from the submitted PDF and its cited repository. New experiments are only safe if small, decisive, and clearly labeled as response-phase additions the camera-ready would absorb.
• Quote coordinates ("Table 3, row 4; §5.2 ¶2"), never re-argue the whole section.
• Keep each reviewer's reply self-contained; meta-reviewers read per-review.
• Never break anonymity — no links that reveal a team, no "as we showed at TREC."

Situation 2: no response window

Then the response happens before submission. Write the paper so the predictable objections above are pre-answered: a tuning-protocol paragraph, a significance-testing sentence under every close comparison, an explicit claim-scope sentence for the collection lineup. Budget half a page of the 9 for pre-emption; it is the cheapest acceptance probability you can buy at a venue where you may never get to talk back.

Situation 3: after rejection

• Reviews are a free experiment-design consult from three IR specialists. Extract the demanded evidence into a checklist before feelings archive the folder.
• Route options in the SIGIR family and neighbors: the next SIGIR cycle, SIGIR-AP (which has advertised a revise-and-resubmit route accepting a 1-3 page response letter with a revised previously-rejected paper — verify its current CFP), ECIR, CIKM, WSDM, or a TOIS journal version if the work outgrew conference page budgets.
• If resubmitting to any SIGIR-family venue, keep a diff-log: R2's "missing BEIR evaluation" answered in §5.3 is a sentence in the next cover letter or R&R note.

Drafting discipline

Reply skeleton per reviewer (aim: fits on one screen)
---------------------------------------------------
Thanks + one-line summary of what we changed/clarify.
[W1] <reviewer's words, 1 line>
  -> Answer with coordinates. (Table/§/Fig)
  -> If conceded: what we will do, where it will go.
[W2] ...
Closing: the one thing we most want re-weighed, stated once.

Anti-patterns that reliably backfire with IR reviewers:

• Arguing that nDCG@10 improvements are "obviously meaningful" without a test — this community invented much of the significance-testing-in-IR literature.
• Dumping new tables for every complaint: it signals the submission was premature.
• Answering the meta-question ("is this SIGIR material?") defensively instead of restating the contribution type (ranking model / evaluation method / resource / analysis) and its intended reader.
• Promising camera-ready changes that exceed what the page budget could ever absorb — reviewers do the arithmetic (appendices count inside the budget at SIGIR).

Tone calibration for a small community

IR is a small field: the reviewer you bruise this cycle chairs your session next year. Calibrate register per line, not per document:

Too hot: "R2 clearly has not read Section 5, where this is addressed." Too cold: "We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment and will carefully consider it in future work." Right: "§5.2 ¶3 reports this experiment (Table 4, rows 2-3); we agree the pointer from §3 was too subtle and will add a forward reference."

The pattern: locate, concede the findability problem even when the content exists, and commit to the small fix. Reserve firm disagreement for factual errors, and spend it at most once per reviewer — a response that disputes everything is read as disputing nothing.

Evidence you can compute during a short window

Because run files exist (if sigir-artifact-evaluation was followed), several reviewer requests are answerable in hours without new training:

• A different metric or cutoff on existing runs — minutes with ir_measures.
• A different significance test or correction — minutes on per-topic scores.
• A per-query breakdown by query length/type — an afternoon.
• A new baseline or a new collection — not window material; promise it only if the camera-ready budget can honestly absorb the result either way.

Deciding whether to fight or fold

• Fight when the misunderstanding is factual and the correction has coordinates.
• Fold (and fix) when two or more reviewers independently hit the same evidence gap — at SIGIR that convergence usually means the gap is real.
• A borderline paper with one champion is worth a careful, warm, precise response; a paper whose scores agree at reject is worth a better next submission instead.

Output format

[Response channel] confirmed window / none this cycle / post-rejection
[Reviewer map] R1: <stance, key ask> | R2: ... | R3: ...
[Triage] answerable-with-coordinates / concede-and-fix / out-of-scope
[New-evidence budget] <what, if anything, gets computed during the window>
[Resubmission route] next SIGIR cycle / SIGIR-AP R&R / ECIR / CIKM / WSDM / TOIS
[One ask] <the single re-weighing request to close with>