Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› conbio-revision-and-rebuttal
conbio-revision-and-rebuttal
GitHub用于撰写Conservation Biology期刊的修改回复信。指导如何针对编辑和审稿人意见，逐点回应并保留双盲格式。强调以编辑意见为准，平衡方法论严谨性与保护相关性，协调冲突建议，确保数据代码同步更新，避免防御性语气或无效妥协。
Trigger Scenarios
收到重大/轻微修改决定并计划修订及回复信
审稿人意见存在冲突需调和
审稿人要求改变论文核心主张的分析
撰写致编辑的修改总结附注
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill conbio-revision-and-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "conbio-revision-and-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when writing the response to a Conservation Biology revise-and-resubmit. Decisions weigh novelty, transferability, methodological soundness, and direct conservation relevance, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the handling editor confident. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results."
}
Revision & Rebuttal (conbio-revision-and-rebuttal)
A Conservation Biology revise-and-resubmit is an invitation to convince. Decisions weigh novelty, transferability, methodological soundness, and direct conservation relevance, and the call rests with the handling/associate editor. So the response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent — and the work double-blind throughout.
When to trigger
- A major/minor revision decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Reviewers disagree with each other and you must reconcile their demands
- A reviewer requests analyses that would change the paper's claims or its conservation message
- 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 — often conservation relevance, soundness, or novelty. 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 (ecology, design, or evidence). A well-argued disagreement beats a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
- Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When one wants the opposite of another, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
- Protect the conservation contribution. Add analyses and caveats that strengthen relevance and transferability; resist changes that dilute the actionable message or over-claim beyond the design.
- Keep double-blind intact in the revised manuscript, and update the data/code package so new
tables/figures remain reproducible and sensitive localities stay masked (see
conbio-reporting-and-data-policy).
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 every change so the editor can verify quickly.
Anti-patterns
- Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
- Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic or its conservation message
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
- "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
Response pass for Conservation Biology
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the species/system threat, conservation decision, and uncertainty relevant to action; then test whether the manuscript addresses conservation-science reviewers who ask whether evidence changes biodiversity, management, or policy action.
- Primary move: Separate editor-order changes from referee-specific changes; answer each major objection with manuscript edits plus a short evidence citation.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next editrows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly. - Neighbor test: compare against Biological Conservation for applied conservation breadth, Global Change Biology for climate/ecosystem process, Ecology Letters for theory-forward ecology; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Submission-ready gate: before final advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.mdfor upload-week rules and name the one live-check item that could change the recommendation.
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
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Conservation message protected】no dilution / over-claim? [Y/N]
【Double-blind + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via ScholarOne Manuscript Central
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— decision categories, reviewer guidelines, double-blind policy
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:47
