prl-revision
GitHub用于处理物理评论快报（PRL）的审稿回复与修改。根据编辑决定制定策略，构建逐点回复信结构，遵循APS规范礼貌回应并引用具体修改位置，同时指导如何打包提交修订稿及平衡篇幅。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill prl-revision -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "prl-revision",
"description": "Use when responding to Physical Review Letters referee reports or editor decisions — point-by-point reply, resubmission, and the APS appeal route. Structures the response and revision; does not redraft the science from scratch."
}
PRL Revision (prl-revision)
When to trigger
- One or more APS referee reports have arrived
- You received an editor decision (revise / reject / reject-with-appeal-option)
- You need to write a point-by-point response letter
- You are weighing resubmission versus appeal versus retargeting to a PR journal
Read the decision before drafting
APS decisions vary: invitation to revise, rejection that invites resubmission, or rejection on importance/breadth. Match your strategy to the decision:
| Decision | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Revise / minor | Address every point; revise manuscript; resubmit promptly |
| Reject but resubmission encouraged | Substantive revision + a response showing what changed |
| Reject on importance/breadth (science sound) | Decide: strengthen breadth case + appeal, or retarget PR journal |
| Reject on correctness | Fix the science or retarget; do not appeal a valid technical flaw |
Point-by-point response structure
For each referee comment:
- Quote the comment verbatim (or faithfully paraphrase).
- Respond — agree and act, or disagree with evidence.
- Point to the change — name the exact location ("revised Sec. ..., new Fig. S3, added sentence in para ...").
Conventions that work with APS referees:
- Be courteous and specific; never dismissive, even with a hostile report.
- Quote new manuscript text in the reply so the referee sees the change without hunting.
- Mark changes in the manuscript (color or a marked-up version) per current APS practice.
- If you disagree, win on evidence and physics, not tone — add a control, a calculation, or a citation.
- Respect the length limit: revisions that add material must re-balance via
prl-length-managementandprl-supplementary.
Worked micro-example: a response entry
Referee: "The claimed effect could arise from heating."
Weak reply: "We are confident heating plays no role."
Strong reply: "We agree this must be excluded. We have added a power-dependence measurement (new Fig. S4): the amplitude is unchanged over a decade of drive power. Sec. III now states: 'The amplitude is power-independent, excluding a thermal origin (SM Sec. S4).'"
The strong reply concedes the concern's legitimacy, answers with a measurement rather than confidence, and quotes the new sentence with its location — the pattern for every entry.
Resubmission packaging
A PRL resubmission is judged as a package:
- Summary of changes — lead with the revision answering the decision letter's central concern.
- One self-contained reply per referee — do not make Referee B hunt through answers to Referee A.
- Length re-certification — added controls count against the deductible budget; state that the revised Letter still passes, or what moved to SM to compensate.
- Timing — resubmit complete rather than fast; a second round typically returns to the same referees.
Handling the breadth/importance rejection specifically
This is the signature PRL outcome. Options:
- Sharpen, don't inflate. Make the broad-interest case concrete (
prl-results-framing,prl-cover-letter) — a real cross-field consequence, not louder adjectives. - Appeal through the defined APS route only if you have a substantive argument the editor/referee missed; appeals are not for re-arguing taste.
- Retarget to Phys. Rev. A–E / PR Research if the breadth case is genuinely weak — often the faster path to publication (
prl-scope-fit).
Checklist
- Every referee point has an explicit response
- Each response names the exact manuscript change location
- New text is quoted in the reply for the referee's convenience
- Disagreements are backed by evidence/physics, not tone
- A marked-up / change-highlighted manuscript is prepared
- Added material is re-balanced against the length limit
- The Letter still stands alone after revision
- If appealing, the appeal raises a substantive missed point, not taste
- If retargeting, the right PR journal is chosen via prl-scope-fit
Anti-patterns
- A defensive or curt tone toward a difficult referee
- Claiming to have addressed a point without actually changing the text
- Adding rebuttal material that pushes the Letter over the length limit
- Appealing a sound technical rejection instead of fixing the science
- Re-arguing breadth with adjectives instead of a concrete consequence
- Letting revisions make the Letter depend on the SM
Output format
【Decision type】revise / resubmit-encouraged / breadth-reject / correctness-reject
【Point-by-point】N comments — all addressed with locations? yes / list gaps
【Tone】courteous + evidence-based? yes / fix
【Length re-balanced after additions】yes / fix
【Stands alone after revision】yes / fix
【Path】resubmit / appeal (substantive?) / retarget via prl-scope-fit
【Next】prl-submission (resubmit) or prl-scope-fit (retarget)
Decision categories, appeal procedures, and markup expectations are durable in spirit; verify the current process on the official APS / PRL author page.
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 14:12
