artbull-revision-and-response
GitHub用于处理《艺术公报》修订与回复，指导如何逐点回应审稿人、保护双盲匿名及图像版权，平衡学术贡献与修改要求。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill artbull-revision-and-response -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "artbull-revision-and-response",
"description": "Use when revising an Art Bulletin manuscript after a decision and writing the response to referees — converting double-blind reviewers without diluting the art-historical contribution, while keeping anonymity and the image\/permissions plan on track. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new evidence."
}
Revision & Response (artbull-revision-and-response)
A revise-and-resubmit at The Art Bulletin is a real opening: promising work that needs more. The revision and its response to referees must move every reviewer toward yes while protecting the contribution — and, because review stays double-blind, the revised files must remain anonymized and the image/permissions plan must keep pace with any new figures.
When to trigger
- A decision arrived (R&R or revise) and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Referees disagree and you must reconcile their demands
- A referee asked for analysis, evidence, or images that change the paper
- 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 and let the editor's framing guide how you weigh conflicting referees.
- Respond point by point — answer every comment. Quote each comment, then respond. Silence reads as non-compliance.
- Concede or rebut explicitly, with reasons. For each: say what you changed and where (page, section, figure number), or push back respectfully on art-historical grounds (the looking, the documents, the historiography). A well-argued disagreement beats a hollow capitulation.
- Reconcile conflicting referees openly. When one wants the opposite of another, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
- Protect the contribution. Strengthen the argument and the evidence; resist changes that dilute the thesis or over-extend it. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
- Keep anonymity and images in sync. The revised manuscript stays double-blind (Word, no
self-revealing notes); any new figures need their permissions cleared and high-resolution
files planned (see
artbull-images-and-permissions).
Response-letter format
For each referee comment:
> [Quoted referee comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree, on art-historical grounds].
Change: [Section / page / figure number where the revision appears].
Open with a short summary of the main changes for the editor; group by referee; end each entry with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.
Anti-patterns
- Ignoring or quietly merging away a comment
- Capitulating to a request that breaks the argument just to please a referee
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward referees
- "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
- Adding a new figure without clearing its permissions
- Letting the revised manuscript lose anonymity
Triage grid for referee demands at the College Art Association quarterly
Not every comment carries equal weight, and some pull against each other. Sort each demand first.
| Comment type | Default response | Watch for (this venue) |
|---|---|---|
| Editor-flagged decisive point | Solve first; lead the cover note with it | The editor's letter is the rubric — it outranks any one referee |
| Reasonable evidentiary ask | Concede; add the source/figure, cite the page | A new figure triggers a fresh permissions clearance |
| Demand that would dilute the thesis | Rebut respectfully on art-historical grounds | Gutting the claim to please a referee weakens it |
Worked vignette: reconciling two referees who want opposite things
Suppose an R&R arrives on an attribution article: Referee A wants the attribution stated boldly as fact, Referee B wants it hedged to "attributed to." The author holds the certainty term where the evidence licenses it and explains the conflict openly: bolder wording would outrun the underdrawing evidence, softer would ignore the inventory link. A referee also asks for a new detail crop, so the author clears its permission and stages the high-resolution file, quoting each comment with its location.
Response-letter pitfalls and the disciplinary correction
- "You thank the reviewer but changed nothing." Pair each acknowledgment with a real change and its location, or an argued rebuttal on art-historical grounds — and keep the resubmitted manuscript Word and self-blind so a new acknowledgment cannot taint the double-blind round.
Calibration anchor (hedge where uncertain)
- An R&R is a genuine opening, not a rejection in disguise: it is the usual route for promising work (confirm against the journal's current submission guidelines).
Output format
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every referee comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with reason + change location
【Conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of the thesis? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + new-figure permissions】in order? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit to the editor
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— image/permissions and manuscript tooling for new figures../../resources/official-source-map.md— double-blind policy and author-permissions responsibility
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:29
