From ajps-skills
Structures the response memorandum for an AJPS revise-and-resubmit, handling reviewer comments, reconciling conflicts, and ensuring double-blind and re-runnable constraints.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ajps-skills:ajps-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
An AJPS **R&R is a real opportunity** — most accepted papers earn it through revision. The response
An AJPS R&R is a real opportunity — most accepted papers earn it through revision. The response
must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision converges, and it carries
two AJPS-specific constraints: the resubmission stays double-blind (the response memorandum is
uploaded anonymized), and any new analysis must keep the deposited code re-runnable, because a
third-party verifier will re-run it at acceptance (see ajps-replication-and-verification).
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 the change so the editor can verify quickly. Keep the memorandum anonymized.
| Comment type | Default move | AJPS-specific caution |
|---|---|---|
| Editor's decisive point | Solve first, visibly | The editor adjudicates; address before reviewer minutiae |
| Identification challenge | Add a check or sensitivity bound | Do not weaken the design that earned the R&R |
| New analysis requested | Run it and script it | Keep the package re-runnable for verification at acceptance |
R2 calls the close-election RD "selection-on-observables in disguise." The response concedes the framing gap, adds a density test (illustrative p = 0.62) and a donut-hole spec to the SI, and cites the new line: "Response: we now report a manipulation test and bandwidth grid (SI Table A4)." R3 instead wants the RD dropped for matching; the memo reconciles openly, retains the RD because the running variable is continuous, adds matching as a robustness check, and explains the tradeoff. Both new exhibits regenerate from the master script, so verification still passes.
Calibration anchor: an AJPS R&R is a genuine path to acceptance and verification is re-run at acceptance, so every new number must stay reproducible — confirm current wording against the journal's guidelines.
【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]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of claim/identification? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package】resubmission still blind; new exhibits re-runnable? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager
../../resources/official-source-map.md — double-blind resubmission and verification-at-acceptance policynpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin ajps-skillsStructures the response letter for an APSR revise-and-resubmit, converting reviewers while keeping the editor confident. Does not fabricate new results.
Structures a response letter for a JOP revise-and-resubmit that addresses each reviewer comment, respects page budget, preserves double-blind anonymity, and maintains replicability for the JOP replication check.
Structures a response letter for a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) revise-and-resubmit, addressing each referee comment and reconciling conflicting demands.