This page will be updated with questions (and answers) as they arise. Please check back regularly. If you do not find an answer to your question here, you are welcome to contact the IJCAI-25 program chair at pcchair@2025.ijcai.org, but please make sure that you have read IJCAI-25 CFP and the current FAQ first.
The author response is intended to provide answers to pressing questions by the reviewers, to point out factual errors in the reviews, and to appeal to unethical reviews. The author rebuttal is not intended to start a dialogue between the authors and the reviewers.
Please do not respond just to say that you don’t like something in the reviews. The cases where you can respond are the following:
1- A reviewer explicitly asks “pressing questions” in their review. Typical questions include requests to clarify or justify particular issues, or about important relationships to other works.
2- You have detected a factual error that could be used to recommend rejection.
3 – In case of unethical reviews, you can enter a confidential message, which will only be visible to the Area Chairs, Senior Area Chairs and (Associate) PC Chairs.
Before investing a lot of time in the rebuttal, please ask yourself also the question whether your answers have a chance to tip the balance. For instance, if there are four reviews that all recommend some form of reject, it is unlikely that the rebuttal will turn this paper into an accept.
If you are in one of the cases described in the last question, then you can write a response. For case (1), please provide the information that the reviewer requested, and nothing else. For case (2), you have to clearly describe what is erroneous in the review and why. Your response to (1) and (2) is limited to 1-page, using the template provided by IJCAI 2025 at www.ijcai.org/sites/default/files/Guidelines/ijcai25-authors-response.zip.
Your response to (3) can be entered in a separate confidential box.
Please notice that less is more and that shorter and more crisp responses have a higher chance of convincing the reviewers.
The PC members, Senior PC Members, Area Chairs, Senior Area Chairs and Program Chairs involved in judging your paper can see the pdf file, i.e. your reply concerning factual errors and responses to questions of the reviewers. Your confidential remarks are only visible to the Area Chairs, Senior Area Chairs and (Associate) PC Chairs, not to the PC and SPC members.
No. Before investing a lot of time in the rebuttal, please ask yourself also the question whether your answers have a chance to tip the balance. For instance, if there are four reviews that all recommend some form of reject, it is unlikely that the rebuttal will turn this paper into an accept.
Every paper will get at least three reviews. At the time the rebuttal opened, some reviews were late, but please observe that they can still come in during the rebuttal phase. Furthermore, during the discussion phase, further reviews may be added.
Yes they can. Despite our best effort to get all reviews in time, some reviewers are late, and we are sorry about that.
You may view a review as unacceptable when it is overly thin and uninformative. In case reviews are overly thin and uninformative (as judged by the ACs and SACs), they will either be expanded or not be taken into account. Other reviews may be added in such cases.
You may view a review as unacceptable because it is unethical. These are the two cases where you can use the confidential box in the rebuttal.
All authors can submit or update the response. It can be updated as many times as you want before the response deadline.
Go to the column “Action” in your author’s page, click on “Post Author Feedback” and follow the guidelines.
No, you cannot. This is providing extra results or materials w.r.t. your original submission. At the same time, you can point out that — as sketched in our reproducibility guidelines — submitting code is not a requirement. Please point the reviewer to these guidelines
Yes, you can, as this is not a new result, it is an explanation and clarification of what is in the paper
Not much. IJCAI 2025 has put in a major effort and sent numerous reminders to reviewers to remind them of the deadlines. While the vast majority of reviews have been received and further ones are coming in, some reviews will not arrive in time for the rebuttal. Further reviews have been or will be solicited and at the decision time, there should be enough information available to make an informed decision. At this stage, we can only ask all reviewers with still open reviews to complete them as soon as possible.
No, you cannot. New experiments are new results, they cannot be included.
Furthermore, reviewers should not ask for this as the review instructions state that questions should not ask for new results.