From american-anthropologist-skills
Structures the response letter for an American Anthropologist revise-and-resubmit, reconciling cross-subfield reviewer comments while protecting the ethnographic contribution and ethics.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/american-anthropologist-skills:amanthro-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
An AA **revise-and-resubmit is the normal route to acceptance** — treat it as an invitation, not a near
An AA revise-and-resubmit is the normal route to acceptance — treat it as an invitation, not a near miss. But the paper still must satisfy expert, sometimes cross-subfield reviewers and the editor. The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while protecting the four-field contribution and the integrity of the ethnography and ethics.
amanthro-transparency-and-data).For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/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.
| 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 reviewers want opposite things (often cross-subfield) | editor | pick a principled path, explain the tradeoff openly |
| Reviewer asks for more identifying detail about interlocutors | author | decline on ethics grounds; explain the consent/harm constraint |
| Reviewer wants the case generalized beyond its scope | author | add scope conditions; resist over-claiming |
| Reviewer disputes a method across traditions | author | answer on that tradition's own terms (four-field pluralism) |
A hypothetical R&R draws three reviews. The editor names two decisive points (four-field significance and an ethics question about a photograph). R1 (sociocultural) wants more interlocutor detail; R2 (linguistic) wants a tighter discourse analysis. The disciplined letter opens with a three-sentence summary, addresses significance and the photograph first (replacing the image with a consented, anonymized alternative), then reconciles R1/R2 by deepening the discourse analysis while declining the request for identifying detail on consent grounds — stated plainly. Of 27 comments, 27 receive a quoted response; 20 conceded with a location, 7 rebutted with a reason. (Counts illustrative.)
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Cross-subfield conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution + ethics protected】no dilution, no de-anonymization? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Research Exchange
../../resources/official-source-map.md — decision categories, ethics-of-care review culturenpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin american-anthropologist-skillsStructures two distinct Current Anthropology response tasks: a private revise-and-resubmit letter to referees before acceptance, and a public signed Reply to invited commentators printed alongside a Major Article.
Structures the response letter for an APSR revise-and-resubmit, converting reviewers while keeping the editor confident. Does not fabricate new results.
Structures a persuasive, evidence-based response to an AJS decision: either an R&R response letter to reviewers/editor or an author Reply to a Comment.