Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› spq-rebuttal
spq-rebuttal
GitHub用于撰写SPQ修改重投（R&R）回复信，协助调和不同社会学-社会心理学传统审稿人的分歧，确保既说服每位审稿人又维护编辑信心。提供结构化写作策略、逐点回应格式及跨传统翻译矩阵，强调保护结构-个体贡献且严禁伪造数据。
Trigger Scenarios
收到SPQ R&R决定并计划修订与回复信
不同传统的审稿人意见冲突需调和
审稿人要求改变论文核心主张的分析或框架
撰写向编辑总结修订情况的附注
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill spq-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "spq-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when writing the response to a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) revise-and-resubmit. SPQ reviewers come from different sociological-social-psychology traditions and may pull in different directions, so the response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor while protecting the structure–individual contribution. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results."
}
R&R Rebuttal (spq-rebuttal)
An SPQ R&R is an opportunity, not a promise. Because reviewers are drawn from across the field's traditions (symbolic interaction, SSP, group processes, identity, affect), they often weigh the paper by different standards. The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent — and without diluting the structure–individual contribution.
When to trigger
- An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Reviewers from different traditions disagree and you must reconcile their demands
- A reviewer requests analyses or framing that would change the paper's claims
- Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision
Strategy
- Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which points are decisive — solve those first; the editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
- One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
- Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the new text/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (theory, design, measurement, or evidence). A well-argued disagreement beats a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
- Translate across traditions. When an experimentalist reviewer and an interpretive reviewer want different things, don't satisfy one by breaking the other's standard. Explain the tradeoff in the paper's own terms and choose a principled path.
- Protect the contribution. Add robustness, measurement detail, or clarification; resist changes that sever the link between social structure/process and the individual that makes the paper an SPQ paper.
- Keep masking intact in the revised manuscript (still blinded; separate title page). Note: the $25
fee is not charged again on resubmission, and updating shared materials is encouraged but not
required (see
spq-data-and-transparency).
Response-letter format
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].
Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly.
Cross-tradition translation matrix
When reviewers pull from different SPQ traditions, translate rather than stack disconnected fixes:
| Reviewer frame | What they may be protecting | Response move |
|---|---|---|
| Symbolic interaction | Meaning, accounts, interaction order, identity work | Add interpretive clarity and negative cases without turning the paper into variable-only prose |
| Social structure and personality | Structural position, stress/process pathway, individual outcome | Clarify the structure-to-self mechanism and measurement validity |
| Group processes / expectation states | Status, legitimacy, influence, formal predictions | Make assumptions and observable implications explicit |
| Identity / affect traditions | Verification, sentiment, emotion management, control process | Show how the revision preserves the theory's process logic |
Use the matrix in the cover note when two reviewers disagree. It lets the editor see that the revision is principled rather than simply longer.
Anti-patterns
- Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
- Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic just to please one reviewer
- Satisfying one tradition's reviewer by violating another's standard without explanation
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
- Letting the revised manuscript lose its masking, or drifting away from the social-psychological contribution
- Adding disconnected theory paragraphs for each reviewer until the paper has no single mechanism
Output format
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Cross-tradition conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Translation matrix】reviewer traditions mapped to response moves? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】structure–individual link intact? [Y/N]
【Masking intact in revision】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via SageTrack
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— masked-review, decision pattern, and resubmission/fee-waiver notes
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:25
