1. About
  2. Features
  3. Explore

I sent a paper to a top-tier computer-science conference, it was rejected and I got several useful suggestions for improvement. I improved the paper accordingly and I consider to submit it to the same conference in the following year. It is likely that the paper will be reviewed by the same referees.

When sending a revised paper to a journal, the authors should indicate where exactly they revised the paper, so that the referees do not have to read everything again. Should I do the same in this case? If so, how can I indicate to the referees the locations in which I corrected the paper according to their comments from previous year?

My concern is that, if I do not indicate where I revised the paper, the referees might think "we have already reviewed this paper and rejected it last year, and it looks similar, so we should reject it again".

1 Answer 1

I would not recommend stating that it's a revised paper for several reasons:

  1. Contrary to your assumption, it is not likely to be reviewed by the same people. Typically, each topic in a large computer science conference may be covered by many reviewers, and they get assigned either arbitrarily or by a bidding process. With a few reviewers assigned from a large pool, there might or might not be overlap, but the majority will likely not have seen the prior version.

  2. Computer science conferences, unlike journals, do not tend to provide a "comments to reviewers" section in their submissions. Trying to wedge that in will likely make your submission stand out in a bad way, putting the idea of rejection in your reviewers' heads.

  3. If you've really done a strong set of revisions, it should be pretty obvious that the paper has changed a lot even to a reviewer who's seen it before.

In short: I see no particular positives and several negatives for such a declaration.