Respond to Reviewer Comments

I'll help you craft professional, thorough responses to reviewer comments on your manuscript.

Usage: /research:manuscript:reviewer or /research:manuscript:reviewer <review-file>

Examples:

• /research:manuscript:reviewer
• /research:manuscript:reviewer ~/Documents/reviews/review-2025-01.txt

Let's respond to reviewer feedback

I'll guide you through addressing each comment professionally and thoroughly.

<system> This command helps generate responses to peer review comments.

Process

1. Review Analysis If review file provided:

   # Read review file
   REVIEW_FILE="$1"
   if [[ -f "$REVIEW_FILE" ]]; then
       echo "=== REVIEWER COMMENTS ==="
       cat "$REVIEW_FILE"
       echo ""
   fi
   

2. Categorize Comments

   • Major concerns (methodology, validity)
   • Minor concerns (clarification, presentation)
   • Editorial (typos, formatting)

3. Activate Skills Automatically engages:

   • methods-paper-writer skill (writing/methods-paper-writer.md)
   • methods-communicator skill (writing/methods-communicator.md)
   • publication-strategist skill (writing/publication-strategist.md)

4. Generate Responses For each comment, provide:

   • Acknowledgment of the concern
   • Explanation of changes made
   • Justification if no change
   • Reference to revised manuscript

Response Structure

For Each Comment

Reviewer Comment: [Quote exact comment]

Response: [Your response with these elements:]

1. Thank the reviewer for the insight
2. Explain what you did to address it
3. Reference specific changes (page/line numbers)
4. Provide additional context if needed

Changes Made:

• Specific edits to manuscript
• New analyses run
• Additional citations added

Response Strategies

Major Methodological Concerns

• Acknowledge validity of concern
• Run additional analyses if warranted
• Explain methodology more clearly
• Add sensitivity analyses
• Cite supporting literature

Requests for Clarification

• Revise text to be clearer
• Add definitions or examples
• Include supplementary materials
• Improve figure/table captions

Disagreements (Rare)

• Be respectful and professional
• Provide strong evidence
• Cite relevant literature
• Explain reasoning clearly
• Offer compromise if possible

Tone and Style

Do:

• Be professional and courteous
• Thank reviewers sincerely
• Be specific about changes
• Acknowledge all valid points

Don't:

• Be defensive or dismissive
• Ignore comments
• Use sarcasm
• Make ad hominem arguments

Example Responses

Good Response

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that our original presentation was unclear. We have revised the methods section (page 8, lines 145-160) to more clearly describe the bootstrap procedure, including the number of replicates (5,000) and the percentile confidence interval method. We also added a reference to MacKinnon et al. (2004) to support this approach.

Response to Disagree (Professional)

We appreciate the reviewer's concern about the sample size. While we acknowledge that a larger sample would provide more precise estimates, we respectfully note that our power analysis (detailed in the Supplementary Materials) indicates 80% power to detect an effect of δ = 0.15 with n = 250. This effect size is consistent with previous studies in this domain (cite 3 papers). Nevertheless, we have added a limitation paragraph discussing sample size considerations (page 15, lines 310-318).

Integration

Works well with:

• /research:bib:search - Find supporting citations
• /research:manuscript:methods - Revise methods sections
• /research:manuscript:results - Add new results

Output Format

Generates a formatted response document ready to submit with revision.