A topic that we do not talk about much as a research community is what to do when papers get rejected. The reasons for rejections vary from obvious technical errors to misunderstood reviewers. The remedies will obviously depend on the causes.

One thing I have found useful is to look at the paper and all the reviews as a meta reviewer and try to highlight pros and cons. If you were going to accept this paper what would you ask the authors do to address the comments and/or modify the paper.

Annotate the reviews with your coauthors and then come up with a list of things to do. You will have to prioritise things though depending on effort, time and what else is getting published meanwhile you work on your revision.

What does not help and is a waste of everybody’s time is to just send the rejected paper to the next conference in line and hope that it will get accepted there.

This wastes your time because you are simply procrastinating things and nothing will be done to the paper until you get the next decision which might very well be another rejection. It also wastes your next set of reviewers time unless conferences forward reviews