Reviewers say contribution doesn't match perfectly with conference - how to write rebuttal?

[blubb]

I received the review of a paper from a conference where my advisor suggested it would be a good fit. But now I received a "conditional acceptance" and have to resubmit a rebuttal explaining also why the paper would be a fit to exactly this conference.

 

The problem is, I could of course submit it to another conference with a "perfect" fit and not choose to try to change the focus of my paper, but now alot of time passed since the submission and I will graduate this year. So this publication would greatly enhance my CV.

 

What would be the best way to write a rebuttal in my case? Was anyone in a similar situation and got the paper accepted? If yes how did you do it? Any advice would help, thanks:-)

 

EDIT: Sorry I think this would have been a better match in the "publications" forum.

Edited July 22, 2014 by blubb

[Eigen]

This is something you should discuss with your advisor. 

[fuzzylogician]

Do you want to go to this conference? If so, I'd take the reviewers' comments seriously and explain how your paper fits. I assume they mentioned places where they weren't sure, so it's your job to respond to their questions. If this is a good conference it's probably worth your time to try and get into it. I'm not sure what a conference with a "perfect" fit for your paper would be, exactly. All that matters is whether this conference is a good venue for the work, in my opinion. You could, of course, start over and try for another conference, but these things take time so it seems to me that you're in better shape if you already have a conditional acceptance, as opposed to starting from scratch. This is under the assumption that you had a good reason to submit to this conference in the first place. If this is all just because you got some criticism, you should get used to that. It should not immediately cause you to back away, but instead you need to learn to deal with it. As Eigen says, these are things that you need to discuss with your advisors. We can't tell you how to respond to the reviews you got since we don't know your paper and haven't seen the reviews. 

[blubb]

Thanks fuzzylogician for

"All that matters is whether this conference is a good venue for the work, in my opinion. You could, of course, start over and try for another conference, but these things take time so it seems to me that you're in better shape if you already have a conditional acceptance, as opposed to starting from scratch. This is under the assumption that you had a good reason to submit to this conference in the first place. If this is all just because you got some criticism, you should get used to that. It should not immediately cause you to back away, but instead you need to learn to deal with it."

 

thats a helpful thought!! My advisor is not available until next week but I need to write it now. So its on me^^