Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› soctheory-rebuttal
soctheory-rebuttal
GitHub用于撰写社会学理论期刊R&R回复信。在修订理论后，结构化地逐点回应审稿人意见，强调理论强化而非单纯辩护。处理冲突时依据编辑优先级进行裁决，保持学术礼貌并避免引入实证测试。
Trigger Scenarios
收到社会学理论(R&R)大修或小修通知且决定继续投稿
已完成理论修订，需撰写针对编辑和审稿人的正式回复文档
需要在书面回复中解决不同审稿人之间的冲突意见
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill soctheory-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "soctheory-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when writing the response document for a Sociological Theory (ST) Revise & Resubmit — structuring point-by-point replies that show the theory was genuinely strengthened, not just defended. Drafts the response; revise the manuscript's theory FIRST (soctheory-theory-construction \/ soctheory-argument-development) before writing the letter."
}
R&R Response Document (soctheory-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You have an ST R&R (Major Revision) or a Minor Revision you intend to pursue
- The theory has been revised and you now need the response-to-reviewers document
- You must adjudicate conflicting reviewer requests in writing
Revise the theory before you write the letter. A rebuttal that argues without changing the manuscript fails at ST. Run
soctheory-argument-developmentandsoctheory-theory-constructionfirst; convert hard cases into boundary conditions withsoctheory-boundary-conditions.
Structure of the response
- Opening to the editor. Thank the team; summarize the theoretical changes at a high level (sharpened concept definitions, a clearer mechanism, added boundary conditions, a better-differentiated contribution). One short paragraph — substance, not flattery.
- Roadmap of major changes. A short list of the biggest theory moves you made, so the editor sees the revision's shape before the point-by-point.
- Point-by-point responses. For every editor and reviewer comment, in order:
- Restate the comment (verbatim or faithfully paraphrased).
- State what you changed in the theory.
- Quote or cite the revised manuscript location (section / proposition / page).
- If you disagree, argue it on theoretical grounds — respectfully and with reasoning.
- Handling reviewer conflicts. When reviewers disagree, say so, explain your adjudication, and tie it to the editor's stated priorities.
How to respond well at ST
- Show, don't assert. "We strengthened the argument" is empty; point to the revised premise, the new mechanism, the added boundary condition, the re-defined concept.
- Respond to theory comments with theory. The reviewers are theorists; a substance comment needs a substantive theoretical answer, not a wording tweak.
- Never offer an empirical test. If a reviewer asks for "evidence," reframe within ST's mission: strengthen the reasoning, the mechanism, the boundary conditions, the engagement with the rival theory, or the warrant — not a sample or estimation. (At ST's empirical siblings ASR/AJS, "we ran additional analyses and the result is robust" is a strong move; at ST the equivalent strength comes from a tighter, more complete argument.)
- Concede what is right. If a reviewer found a genuine logical gap or conceptual overlap, fix it and say so plainly. Graceful concession builds credibility for the points you contest.
- Defend the contribution explicitly if novelty was questioned — restate the before → after
and the differentiation from the nearest prior theory (
soctheory-contribution-framing). - Sharpen concepts if clarity was challenged — redefine with extension and distinction
(
soctheory-theory-construction). - Keep the tone collegial. ST review typically runs multiple rounds, with the bar rising each round; the response should read as a conversation among theorists.
Per-comment template
Comment R[n].[k]: [restated comment]
Response: [what changed in the theory + why]
Location: [Section X / Proposition Pn / p. Y]
[If contesting] Respectfully, we retain [X] because [theoretical reasoning].
Checklist
- The manuscript's theory was actually revised before the letter was written
- Every comment from every reviewer (and the editor) has a numbered response
- Each response points to a concrete manuscript location
- Theory-substance comments answered with theory, not wording
- No response promises or adds an empirical test (any data stays illustrative)
- Reviewer conflicts adjudicated transparently and tied to the editor's priorities
- Genuine concessions made where reviewers were right
- Contribution re-defended if novelty was challenged; concepts re-sharpened if clarity was challenged
- Tone collegial throughout
Anti-patterns
- Arguing in the letter without changing the manuscript
- "We thank the reviewer and have addressed this" with no concrete location or change
- Answering a deep theoretical objection with a cosmetic edit
- Promising "future empirical validation" as if it resolves a theory gap
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward a reviewer's substantive point
- Ignoring one reviewer to please another instead of adjudicating openly
- Over-claiming the revision is "final" when ST R&Rs typically run multiple rounds
Output format
【Decision being answered】Major (R&R) / Minor
【Theory revised first?】yes (summary of changes) / no → revise first
【Coverage】every editor+reviewer comment has a numbered response: yes/no
【Empirical test offered?】must be: none (data illustrative only)
【Conflicts adjudicated】[...]
【Contribution re-defended】yes / n/a
【Next step】resubmit via Manuscript Central → soctheory-review-process for the next round
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:27
