The best way we could find to require a letter is to make the letter upload field required for submission. Please upload any PDF document if it’s the first submission of the paper (e.g., upload a blank PDF file).
We strongly believe that both authors and reviewers should all consider how a submitted paper improves based on feedback provided by reviewers of prior submissions. To emphasize this position, authors of submissions to MICRO 2020, which have been previously reviewed and rejected, are encouraged to provide a revision letter. Ideally, this letter summarizes how the paper has changed based on past reviews and reviewer comments. We believe authors should make a conscious decision rather than simply ignore the option by default and have therefore made the revision-letter required for submission, though we will accept minimalistic letters as outlined in this FAQ.
The content of the revision letter is left to the authors. A minimalistic letter is acceptable (see next answer). We hope that at a minimum, the letter will include a brief high-level description of how the paper has been revised (see more on minimalistic letters in the next question). Authors should consider a balance between the length of the letter and the provided information and structure the letter and its appendices (all in one PDF file) to convey the information hierarchically (e.g., with an executive summary / introduction). Some suggestions for content to include are: (1) a description of what changed w.r.t. the core idea, methodology, experiments, related work, and background information; (2) a copy of the paper with changes highlighted; (3) a “change log” across iterations of the paper being submitted; (4) a specific “pre-rebuttal” response to some concerns raised in prior reviews; (5) actual previous reviews and responses; and/or (6) a description of why some prior review comments are not incorporated. Importantly, consider the fact that not all reviewers will necessarily read this material carefully, and make it as digestible as possible.
A minimalistic letter that states, for example that no changes were made or that the authors consciously made the decision to not supply revision information is acceptable (e.g., “The authors choose to not make revision information available at this time”).
The authors can exercise some control over who sees the revision letter and when. Specifically for MICRO-53, authors may make the revision letter available to: (1) all reviewers during the initial review process (preferred), (2) those reviewers who declare that they reviewed a prior version and explicitly request the revision information, (3) shared along with the rebuttal, (4) shared only with paper discussion leads in preparation for PC discussion, or (5) not shared with any PC member. Reviewers will be instructed to strictly use the revision information to better understand the submission and how it has improved over time, and not to consider the quality of the revision letter when evaluating the paper. If the letter is shared only with the PC Chairs it will not be used during the review process.
If you ask that the revision letter will only be shared with reviewers who explicitly declare that they had previously reviewed the paper, we will first confirm that the reviewer request includes a previous venue that the authors specifically include in the list of prior submissions in the appropriate field of the submission form. The letter will not be made available to any other reviewers under any circumstances.
Implementing the different sharing options is not natural within HotCRP. The PC Chairs will rely on a combination of HotCRP features, scripts, and email for implementation. The multiple fields are there to help reduce the likelihood of mistakes in this process, by transferring some of the responsibility to the authors during submission.
There are 3 fields on the submission form Relating to the revision letter (all information as a single file): (1) optional field for uploading letter to be shared with the PC chairs only ; (2) optional field for uploading letter to be shared with all reviewers immediately when the review process begins; (3) drop-down field to select sharing option. To share during rebuttal, authors should attach the letter as part of the author response. And you do not need to upload the revision letter during submission.
We strongly encourage you to share your revision letter with all reviewers, either immediately or as part of your author response. However, we offer the other sharing options to allow each author to better balance their concerns. Some authors may worry that a reviewer who has already seen the work will ignore all the hard work they put to improve the paper, and therefore wish to provide a detailed letter that is shared with all reviewers. Others may worry that revealing that the paper had previously been rejected will negatively bias reviewers and thus choose to only share with the PC Chairs.
Reviewers are instructed to strictly use the revision information to better understand the submission and how it has improved over time. Reviewers are instructed not to consider the quality of the revision letter when evaluating the paper under any circumstances. Reviewers are instructed to ignore the lack of a revision letter, even for papers that they believe they had previously reviewed. This submission of a revision letter is new and reviewers will be expected and reminded to take extra care and how they use the revision information.
The authors can exercise some control over who sees the revision letter and when. Specifically for MICRO-53 authors may make the revision letter available to: (1) all reviewers during the initial review process (preferred), (2) those reviewers who declare that they reviewed a prior version and explicitly request the revision information, (3) shared along with the rebuttal, (4) shared only with paper discussion leads in preparation for PC discussion, or (5) not shared with any PC member. Reviewers will be instructed to strictly use the revision information to better understand the submission and how it has improved over time, and not to consider the quality of the revision letter when evaluating the paper.