extra pointers to guidelines

authors.md

@@ -42,9 +42,9 @@ The purpose of author response at ARR is different from that at conferences. At
 
 Due to these differences, the ARR author response also has different goals than a typical conference author response, and in some cases different workflows are more appropriate. Some examples follow:
 
-- If a review raises criticisms that are based on minor misunderstandings or factual inaccuracies, the author response can and should focus on this.
+- If a review raises criticisms that are based on minor misunderstandings or factual inaccuracies, the author response can and should focus on this. 
 - If a reviewer makes significant clarity-related objections, it might be best to revise and resubmit (see [step 4](#step4)).
-- If a reviewer has strong (and, in your opinion, unfair) objections about your paper, it might be prudent to resubmit and request a different set of reviewers in the next iteration. You will need to motivate this in the revision notes (see [step 4](#step4)).
+- If a reviewer has strong (and, in your opinion, unfair) objections about your paper, it might be prudent to resubmit and request a different set of reviewers in the next iteration. You will need to motivate this in the revision notes (see [step 4](#step4)). If you choose to try to convince them, you are welcome to cite [ARR reviewer guidelines](/reviewerguidelines.md). Now you also have [the option of reporting issues with reviews](#step2.2) after they are finalized.
 
 Your response will immediately be visible to the reviewers. If a reviewer responds to your response, it will be possible to have a back-and-forth conversation using the ‘Official Comment’ button. Similar to the spirit of the first author response, the goal of the back-and-forth conversation is also to clarify any further misunderstandings; repeatedly arguing your point of view to a strongly opinionated reviewer will not be helpful and is not recommended. If you believe that the reviewer is violating the reviewer guidelines, it’s best to flag this using the confidential comment, specifying exactly what guideline is violated and why you believe so. Note that it is unreasonable to expect ACs to read very long discussions with reviewers: their guidelines ask them to read at least 2 author responses per review thread, but they will probably not read more. So please keep your discussion focused on the main issues that significantly impact the assessment.