Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› bjps-rebuttal
bjps-rebuttal
GitHub针对BJPS修订重投（R&R）的回复信撰写指南。指导如何解读编辑意见、逐条回应审稿人、调和冲突建议并保护核心贡献，确保格式规范且维护双盲评审要求。
Trigger Scenarios
收到BJPS修订重投决定后规划修改及回复信
审稿人意见存在分歧需进行调和
审稿人要求可能改变论文主张的分析
撰写总结修改内容的编辑附信
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill bjps-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "bjps-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when writing the response to a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) revise-and-resubmit. The response must convert each of the (usually two-plus) double-blind referees while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results."
}
R&R Rebuttal (bjps-rebuttal)
A BJPS R&R is a strong signal that the paper is in contention. But the revision must satisfy the (usually two or more) referees and persuade the editor that the paper now makes its case of wide interest. The response letter must move every referee toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision converges.
When to trigger
- An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Referees disagree with each other and you must reconcile their demands
- A referee requests analyses 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 referees.
- 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, or evidence). Editors respect a well-argued disagreement more than a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
- Reconcile conflicting referees openly. When R1 wants the opposite of R2, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor. Don't silently satisfy one and ignore the other.
- Protect the contribution. Add robustness and clarifications; resist changes that dilute the wide-interest claim that earned the R&R. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
- Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-blind), and update the
replication package so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see
bjps-transparency-and-data).
Response-letter format
For each referee comment:
> [Quoted referee 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 referee; end each per-comment entry with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.
Triage table for a BJPS R&R
| Comment signal | Who owns the call | Default move in the response |
|---|---|---|
| Editor flags it as decisive | editor | solve first, headline it in the cover note |
| Two referees want opposite things | editor | pick a principled path, explain the tradeoff openly |
| Referee asks for an analysis that would change the claim | author + editor | run it, then defend or re-scope the contribution honestly |
| Referee wants the result generalized beyond the case/design | author | add scope conditions; show what travels and what does not |
| Referee disputes a methodological choice across traditions | author | answer on that tradition's own terms (pluralism) |
| Referee says the result is parochial | author | re-anchor to the general mechanism / cross-national stake |
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 a referee
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward referees
- "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
- Adding analyses that quietly contradict the original claim without acknowledging it
- Letting the revised manuscript or new exhibits drift out of sync with the deposited package
Referee-pushback patterns and the BJPS-specific repair
- "Revision drifted back to a single-case / parochial framing." → Restore the general-interest framing; defend scope conditions instead of retreating to a within-case result.
- "New tables don't match the deposited package." → Re-verify the replication package so every revised exhibit re-runs; the materials are public via the BJPolS Dataverse.
- "You ignored a comment." → Silence reads as non-compliance; quote and answer every one, even to say why you respectfully disagree.
- "Capitulation weakened the paper's logic." → A well-argued disagreement is respected more than a hollow concession that dilutes the contribution.
Output format
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every referee comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Referee conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of wide interest? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via the submission portal
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— decision categories and double-blind revision policy
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:25
