Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› newms-rebuttal
newms-rebuttal
GitHub用于应对新传媒与社会（NM&S）期刊的修改重投决定，构建逐点回复信。协助梳理结构、调和跨学科审稿人冲突，并提供增强论点的策略与示例，确保严谨回应编辑与审稿意见。
Trigger Scenarios
收到重大/轻微修改或鼓励性拒稿决定
需要结构化回复信及修订计划
审稿人意见存在分歧需调和
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill newms-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "newms-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when responding to a New Media & Society (NM&S) revise-and-resubmit decision — building a point-by-point response letter to multiple interdisciplinary reviewers plus the editor. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results."
}
Rebuttal & R&R Strategy (newms-rebuttal)
A major revision at NM&S is an invitation, not a rejection — but it must be earned with a disciplined, point-by-point response to an interdisciplinary set of reviewers whose objections often pull in different directions. The letter is as important as the revision: it shows the editor you took every reviewer seriously and resolved (or reasonably contested) each point.
When to trigger
- You received a major/minor revision (or a reject-with-encouragement) decision
- You need to structure the response letter and the revision plan
- Reviewers disagree with each other and you must reconcile their demands
Response-letter structure
- Opening note to the editor. Thank them, summarize the 3-4 biggest changes, and state how the paper improved. Editors triage by this summary.
- Point-by-point, verbatim. Quote each reviewer comment, then respond directly beneath it. Number them (R1.1, R1.2…). Never skip a point, even a small one.
- For each point: state what you changed, quote the new manuscript text, and give the page/line. If you disagree, say so respectfully with evidence — do not silently ignore.
- A reconciliation paragraph where reviewers conflict (see below).
Reconciling conflicting interdisciplinary reviewers (NM&S-specific)
This is the signature NM&S rebuttal challenge — a computational reviewer wants more data; a critical reviewer wants more theory; a qualitative reviewer wants more reflexivity. Tactics:
| Conflict | Move |
|---|---|
| Generality vs. depth | reframe the claim as a scoped mechanism (not a population estimate) so both are satisfied |
| More method vs. more theory | add a compact validation/robustness note and sharpen the concept |
| Two incompatible demands | choose, justify to the editor, and explain why the alternative would weaken the contribution |
Make the editor your ally: where reviewers genuinely conflict, surface it explicitly and ask the editor to adjudicate rather than trying to please both at the cost of coherence.
What strengthens an NM&S rebuttal
- New evidence where it's cheap and decisive — a validation table, a negative-case analysis, an added robustness sweep — rather than promises.
- Concept sharpening in response to "atheoretical" or "platform report" comments.
- Ethics clarifications (consent, anonymization, ToS) if a reviewer flagged data handling.
- Honest scope limits added to the discussion in response to over-generalization worries.
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
R2.3 (computational reviewer): "N=30 interviews can't support a general claim."
Response: "We agree and have reframed the contribution as a *mechanism with scope conditions*
(pp. 4, 18), not a population estimate, and added a negative-case analysis (Table 3) showing where
datafied control does not operate. We also note the qualitative design's purpose is mechanism
identification, not prevalence (p. 9)."
Editor note: flags that R2 and R1 (critical) pull opposite ways; explains the scoped-mechanism reframe
resolves both.
Calibration anchors
- Answer every point, quote every change. Silence on a comment reads as evasion to the editor.
- Reconcile, don't appease. When reviewers conflict, pick the coherent path and justify it to the editor.
- Reframe to a scoped mechanism to defuse the recurring "small-N, how general?" objection.
Anti-patterns
- A defensive or dismissive tone toward any reviewer
- Skipping "minor" comments or answering selectively
- Claiming a change without quoting the new text or giving a location
- Trying to satisfy two incompatible reviewers and producing an incoherent paper
- Adding scope-creep results that invite a new round of objections
Output format
【Decision】major / minor / reject-with-encouragement
【Big changes】the 3-4 headline improvements for the editor's summary
【Per-point plan】R1.x / R2.x … each with change + manuscript location
【Conflicts】where reviewers disagree and how reconciled (with editor note)
【Next】newms-submission (re-upload the revision + response letter)
Supplementary resources
../../resources/exemplars/library.md— exemplars to benchmark a revised contribution../../resources/official-source-map.md— review model and decision categories
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:07
