  At the foundation of scientific evaluation is the labor-intensive process of
peer review. This critical task requires participants to consume vast amounts
of highly technical text. Prior work has annotated different aspects of review
argumentation, but discourse relations between reviews and rebuttals have yet
to be examined. We present DISAPERE, a labeled dataset of 20k sentences
contained in 506 review-rebuttal pairs in English, annotated by experts.
DISAPERE synthesizes label sets from prior work and extends them to include
fine-grained annotation of the rebuttal sentences, characterizing their context
in the review and the authors' stance towards review arguments. Further, we
annotate every review and rebuttal sentence. We show that discourse cues from
rebuttals can shed light on the quality and interpretation of reviews. Further,
an understanding of the argumentative strategies employed by the reviewers and
authors provides useful signal for area chairs and other decision makers.
