Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› amr-rebuttal
amr-rebuttal
GitHub用于撰写AMR修订重投回复信。先完善理论，再按结构回应审稿人：致谢、概述修改、逐点回复及冲突处理。强调基于理论的逻辑强化而非实证数据，保持学术对话语气。
Trigger Scenarios
收到AMR大修或拒稿重投通知
需要撰写针对审稿意见的逐点回复文档
需书面裁决相互矛盾的审稿建议
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amr-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "amr-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when writing the response document for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) 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 (amr-theory-development \/ amr-data-analysis) before writing the letter."
}
R&R Response Document (amr-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You have an AMR R&R (Major Revision) or a Reject & Resubmit 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 AMR. Run
amr-data-analysisandamr-theory-developmentfirst.
Structure of the response
- Opening to the editor. Thank the team; summarize the theoretical changes at a high level (new construct definitions, sharpened mechanism, added boundary conditions, clearer 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 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 AMR
- Show, don't assert. "We strengthened the argument" is empty; point to the revised premise, the new mechanism, the added boundary condition.
- Respond to theory comments with theory. The reviewers are theorists; a substance comment needs a substantive theoretical answer, not a wording tweak.
- Never offer data. If a reviewer asks for "evidence," reframe within AMR's mission: strengthen the logical support, the mechanism, the boundary conditions, or the disconfirming-case treatment — not an empirical test.
- Concede what is right. If a reviewer found a genuine logical gap, fix it and say so plainly. Graceful concession builds credibility for the points you do contest.
- Defend the contribution explicitly if novelty was questioned — restate the before → after and the differentiation from the nearest prior theory, framed against Whetten's What/How/Why/Who-Where-When (AMR 1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371).
- Sharpen constructs if distinctiveness was challenged — redefine with scope conditions per Suddaby's construct-clarity criteria (AMR 2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419).
- Keep the tone collegial. AMR review is developmental and typically runs multiple rounds, with the bar rising each round; the response should read as a conversation among theorists. (At AMR's empirical sibling AMJ, "we ran additional analyses and the result is robust" is a strong move; at AMR the equivalent strength comes from a tighter, more complete argument.)
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 empirical data
- 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
- Tone collegial and developmental 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 data or "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 AMR R&Rs typically run multiple rounds
Output format
【Decision being answered】R&R / Reject & Resubmit
【Theory revised first?】yes (summary of changes) / no → revise first
【Coverage】every editor+reviewer comment has a numbered response: yes/no
【Data offered?】must be: none
【Conflicts adjudicated】[...]
【Contribution re-defended】yes / n/a
【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne → amr-review-process for the next round
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:14
