Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› respol-rebuttal
respol-rebuttal
GitHub用于起草Research Policy论文修改回复信，将审稿意见转化为逐点回应与修订计划。优先处理编辑指令，按重要性分类问题，以证据辩护并优雅妥协，保护创新研究贡献，协调冲突意见，确保回复策略有效且具说服力。
Trigger Scenarios
收到RP大修/小修决定需撰写回复信
审稿人意见冲突需统一立场
审稿人质疑专利/文献计量指标或识别策略
编辑摘要指出关键接受条件
面临过度让步或全盘反驳的风险
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill respol-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "respol-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when drafting the response to a Research Policy (RP) decision letter — converting double-blind referee and handling-editor comments into a point-by-point response and a revision plan that protects the innovation-studies contribution. Builds the response strategy; it is the terminal skill in the pack."
}
Rebuttal Strategy (respol-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- An RP major/minor revision arrived and you must turn comments into a response letter
- Referees disagree with each other and you need a coherent line across both
- A referee challenges a patent/bibliometric construct, an identification choice, or the scope
- The handling editor's summary signals which points are binding for acceptance
- You are tempted to concede everything (losing the contribution) or rebut everything (losing the editor)
How RP rebuttals are read
The Handling Editor who managed your double-blind review reads the response and decides. Their summary letter is the priority signal: address those points first and unambiguously. Referees are innovation-studies experts, so a credible response defends the innovation claim and its constructs with evidence, not rhetoric — and concedes gracefully where they are right. The fastest route to a second rejection is a response that argues with referees instead of resolving their concern, or that fixes wording while leaving a substantive construct/identification challenge unanswered.
Building the response
- Open with the editor. A short cover note: thank the editor and referees, state the main changes, and map them to the editor's summary points.
- Point-by-point, quote-then-respond. Restate each comment verbatim, then respond. For each: (a) what you changed, (b) where (section/table/page), (c) the result. Make the change visible, not merely promised.
- Triage by stakes.
- Must-fix (binding): construct validity of patent/bibliometric measures, identification/endogeneity, out-of-scope framing, overclaiming. These decide acceptance — resolve with new analysis or honest reframing.
- Framing/positioning: re-anchor in the RP/innovation-studies canon; sharpen the contribution.
- Discretionary: exhibits, clarity, citations — make them; they build goodwill.
- Defend with evidence, concede with grace. Where a referee is right, fix it and say so. Where a referee is wrong, show the analysis (a robustness check, a construct test) rather than asserting; if a request is infeasible, explain why and offer the closest feasible alternative.
- Protect the contribution. Do not let scattered concessions erode the innovation-studies claim; if a requested change would dilute it, propose a way to satisfy the concern without abandoning the advance.
- Reconcile conflicting referees. State the tension openly and choose a defensible course; tell the editor how you weighed the two.
RP-specific pushbacks and how to answer
- "Your patent/citation measure is endogenous / a poor proxy." → Add a bias-targeted check (examiner vs. applicant citations, self-citation correction, alternative indicator) and report stability.
- "This reads like economics/strategy, not innovation studies." → Re-anchor the framing and references in the RP canon; foreground the innovation-system/policy implication.
- "The contribution is incremental / technique-driven." → Restate before→after for innovation studies; show the new mechanism or boundary the evidence establishes.
- "Robustness is thin." → Vary the key innovation construct and the specification; show the result is not an artifact of the measure.
Checklist
- A cover note maps the main changes to the handling editor's summary points
- Every comment is quoted then answered with what/where/result
- Binding construct/identification/scope points are resolved with evidence, not rhetoric
- Concessions are made where referees are right, without eroding the contribution
- Conflicting referee requests are reconciled explicitly for the editor
- A change log / tracked-changes manuscript accompanies the letter
- The revised paper still anchors clearly in innovation studies
Anti-patterns
- Arguing with a referee instead of resolving the concern
- Fixing wording while leaving a substantive construct/identification challenge unanswered
- Conceding so broadly that the innovation-studies contribution disappears
- Ignoring the editor's summary and answering only the referees
- Claiming a change without showing where it landed in the manuscript
- Promising future work in place of doing the requested analysis
Output format
【Journal】Research Policy
【Skill】respol-rebuttal
【Editor summary mapped】main changes tied to the editor's points? [Y/N]
【Binding points】construct / identification / scope / overclaim — resolved how
【Framing points】re-anchored in innovation studies? [Y/N]
【Conflicts reconciled】how disagreeing referees were handled
【Contribution protected】claim intact after revisions? [Y/N]
【Artifacts】response letter + tracked-changes manuscript ready? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via Elsevier system; if rejected, respol-review-process to weigh a sibling
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:19
