My conference paper got conditionally accepted, but one of the remarks of the reviewer was: "The presentation and motivation are not explained." I'm not sure what to think about this. English is not my native language, so I'm not quite following what does this means.

What doeas "presentation" in the paper means? I was at the conference, and I have presented my work, but I guess that definitelly doesn't have anything to do with this review.

And about motivation, I'm not quite following how motivation is not explained? Can someone point to a few examples that explain this issue?

I hope I haven't done anything wrong quoting one sentece from the review. Also, I'm really sorry if it is something that happens quite often. Oh, I forgot to say that I'am a mathematician.:)

  • I guess these are hard to answer without reading your paper.
    – Olorun
    Nov 7, 2015 at 0:26
  • Yes, I was worried about that, but at least I hope that somehow I'll got the answer. I have to try.:)
    – DDCh
    Nov 7, 2015 at 0:30
  • 2
    Presentation == describe your work better (language, graphs if applicable, structure, etc.); Motivation == explain better why you investigated this, and why your findings matter (also relation to prior and other work, if applicable) Nov 7, 2015 at 1:00

1 Answer 1


I agree with @gnometorule. It looks like the reviewer wrote a sloppy comment. I imagine the reviewer meant, "The presentation needs improvement, and the motivation should be explained better." Presentation means how you present your ideas. I suppose the reviewer felt that the ideas could be presented more clearly. Motivation makes the reader care about your contribution.

Hopefully the reviewer also made some specific comments that will guide your revision process.

You must log in to answer this question.

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