> This is confusing to the academic who expects to get access to the raw review responses so that the paper can be fixed. At most CS conferences, there is no s

> This is confusing to the academic who expects to get access to the raw review responses so that the paper can be fixed. At most CS conferences, there is no second round of reviews (apart from a few PL ones that have been experimenting lately). If you get rejected, it's with the expectation that you make whatever changes you see fit and then submit anew to a different conference. In addition, there is generally no way to update a submitted paper after the submission deadline in such a way that the changes can still be taken into account in the single round of reviews, and making major changes after the accepting venue's review stage is very much frowned upon (as those changes would then not be reviewed). So her options would have been: 1. retract the paper; 2. get the paper rejected from the conference, and resubmit it later; 3. get the paper accepted and have it published without the major changes requested by Google, thus violating Google's policy/interests; 4. get the paper accepted and perform the major changes requested by Google at the camera-ready stage, thus violating academic convention and possibly even specific rules set out by the accepting conference. 2 is mostly 1 with more of everyone's time wasted, and 3 and 4 both violate some obligation or another. From Google's point of view, she might also well have gone for 3 without keeping them in the loop to present them with a fait accompli, and her enormous amount of social capital may have made it easy to get away with. Demanding 1 therefore seems like the most reasonable choice if they want to retain a credible norm of subjecting publications of people who work for them to prior review.