pods-author-response

name	pods-author-response
description	Use when drafting ACM PODS author responses, covering the short ~48-hour double-anonymous rebuttal that corrects misreadings of proofs and definitions, and — distinctively — the shepherded revision cover letter that maps every required item to a concrete change in the resubmitted paper and survives the shepherd's second read.

PODS Author Response

Use this after PODS reviews are released. PODS has two distinct speaking turns, and conflating them is a common mistake: a short rebuttal (about 48 hours, a few thousand characters) right after reviews, and — if you receive a revision decision — a revision cover letter accompanying a resubmitted paper that a shepherd re-reads. Both stay double-anonymous: do not reveal authors, affiliations, or a named system, even to strengthen a point.

Triage (both turns)

• Answer what affects correctness first: a claimed error in a proof, an unstated assumption, a mismatch between an upper and a lower bound, or an out-of-scope objection.
• Distinguish a misreading (the reviewer misunderstood a definition or missed an existing appendix proof — fixable now, in the rebuttal) from a real gap (a step that genuinely needs to be written — fixable only in the revision).
• Keep every word anonymous: no institution, no funder, no real system name, no "our earlier work" phrased in the first person.

Turn 1 — the 48-hour rebuttal

Short and correctness-focused. The rebuttal exists to clarify misunderstandings and factual errors via pointers to the submitted paper — not to present new mathematics.

• Point to the exact definition, lemma, or appendix proof the reviewer overlooked ("the proof the reviewer requests is already in Appendix B, Lemma 7").
• Concede a genuine error plainly and state whether it is fixable in a revision.
• Do not paste a new proof the reviewers cannot verify in 48 hours; promising an unwritten proof does not move a theory review — it flags the gap.

Turn 2 — the revision cover letter (the distinctive PODS move)

A revision (minor or major) is a genuine shepherded second round. The cover letter is a change ledger: for every required item, either make the change and show exactly where, or explain precisely why it is unnecessary — and satisfy the shepherd.

[R1.1] Required: "the complexity bound in Thm 3 is not justified"
       -> Action: DONE  | added the full accounting in §4.2 and the deferred steps in Appendix B
       -> Where: §4.2 (para 2), Appendix B (Lemma 7, revised)
[R1.2] Required: "state the assumption the lower bound rests on"
       -> Action: DONE  | Thm 4 now labeled as conditional on OMv; stated at point of use (§5)
[R2.1] Suggested: "extend the dichotomy to self-joins"
       -> Action: DECLINED (with reason) | self-joins need a different reduction; out of scope for the
          revision window, now stated as an explicit open problem (§7) rather than implied

The rule that turns a revision into an acceptance: address every required item. An item neither done nor explicitly and defensibly declined is what the shepherd's read punishes.

Reviewer pushback patterns

Pushback	What it signals	PODS-ready response
"The proof of Thm X has a gap"	Correctness doubt	Fix the step in the revision and show it; if it is a misreading, point to the existing proof in the rebuttal
"The lower bound does not match the upper bound"	Optimality unproven	Close the gap, or scope the optimality claim to the model actually proved
"This assumption is hidden/unstated"	Rigor gap	Label the conditional result at its point of use; state the assumption explicitly
"The model trivializes the result"	Modeling objection	Defend the model as realistic, or adjust it and re-derive; do not ignore
"Overlaps prior result Y"	Novelty/delta doubt	Sharpen the theorem-level delta; add the missing comparison of results

Anonymity in the response (easy to slip)

• Refer to your own prior work in the third person, as in the paper.
• Describe revisions without linking to an identifying arXiv preprint or homepage; reference the in-PDF appendix location instead.
• Do not thank a named collaborator, advisor, or funder inside the rebuttal or cover letter.

Calibration

• Respond to the criterion the reviewer raised (correctness, tightness, modeling, novelty), not the one you would rather defend.
• Length and format norms for both turns vary by cycle; confirm the current instructions before sending.
• The shepherd decides the revised paper; make the paper, not the letter, carry the corrected mathematics.

Output format

[Turn] 48-hour rebuttal / revision cover letter
[Priority issue] <reviewer concern>
[Decision dimension] correctness / tightness / modeling / significance / clarity
[Change ledger] <required item -> DONE/PARTIAL/DECLINED + where in paper/appendix>
[Anonymity check] <no identity leak in the response: passed/issues>