pods-author-response

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

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>