Besides the anonymized manuscript of the paper, a conference in my field (HCI) "highly encourages" to also submit

  1. the venue and ID where the paper was previously submitted (and rejected)
  2. a description of the revisions made
  3. (optional) the prior rejected version of the paper (anonymized pdf)
  4. (optional) the full set of reviews on this previously rejected paper (including reviewer numbers, expertise, score, and review)

It is unclear to me what good all this information would do in the review process. (It is also not mentioned who will see the info - chairs only, ACs, or all reviewers?)

I don't see what good it would bring to demonstrate that my paper has been strengthened since the last rejection. That's a given, and only the submitted manuscript should be evaluated.

Should I disclose all this optional information, or submit only the bare minimum? What is the best strategy here?

  • 1
    This request seems very odd. I can't suggest a strategy since I don't/can't understand what the committee is thinking. But it feels like laziness.
    – Buffy
    Apr 6, 2022 at 13:41
  • Yeah, and it's not even all info they ask for. They also want to know if you have related papers under review (with conference venue and submission number).
    – reggie
    Apr 7, 2022 at 5:13

2 Answers 2


An odd request. That said, thinking strategically, since it's "highly encouraged" honoring it might increase the chances for acceptance.

  • Maybe. Or, alternatively, a quick and easy (lazy) way to reject.
    – Buffy
    Apr 6, 2022 at 13:42
  • @Buffy Maybe. If they want to reject, why not make it easy for them and save everyone's time? If the submission has really been improved based on the first rejection then the comparison might work in the OP's favor. But the request really is strange. Apr 6, 2022 at 13:46

I would say that providing this information will usually not be in your best interest as an author. The only time I would be tempted to do so is if the reviewers explicitly praised the value of the previous submission, but rejected it based on a concern you have now very clearly and completely fixed.

This seems like a rare situation. In most cases you are probably better served with reviewers evaluating the pros and cons of your work with fresh eyes and without being biased by the (presumably negative) comments a previous version of your work has received.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'm with Buffy that I suspect the main reason for asking for this is to give the reviewers a quick out to say "clearly the concerns of the previous reviewers have not been addressed, reject". As author I would not be inclined to play along with this game.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .