From annals-aag-skills
Builds a point-by-point response to an Annals of the American Association of Geographers decision letter (major/minor revision), structuring rebuttals for the subject editor and 1-3 referees across the journal's four areas.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annals-aag-skills:aaag-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
A major revision at the Annals is a **scoped invitation**, not a rejection. The response letter is
A major revision at the Annals is a scoped invitation, not a rejection. The response letter is judged alongside the manuscript by the subject editor who handled it and the 1-3 referees (one of whom is the editor or designate). Win by addressing every point, respectfully and concretely, and by strengthening the geographic argument, not just patching mechanics.
aaag-theory-building), not just more robustness tables.R2.3 (verbatim): "The OLS results ignore spatial autocorrelation; I am not convinced the relationships
are real rather than artifacts of clustering."
Response: We agree this was a gap. We now test residual spatial autocorrelation (Moran's I = 0.31,
p<0.01 in the OLS) and re-estimate with a spatial error model; the focal relationship persists and
weakens modestly (new Table 3, p. 14). We also add a MAUP sensitivity panel across three areal units
(Appendix B) showing the result is not a unit artifact. Revised text: "…accounting for residual
spatial dependence, the association remains…" (p. 14, ¶2).
This concedes the point, shows the new analysis and its location, and quotes the revised sentence — the move editors reward over "we have addressed this."
| Referee ask | Posture |
|---|---|
| Valid spatial-method / validation gap | Concede and fix; it is first-order at this venue |
| "Make it quantitative" on a qualitative paper | Push back on its own terms; do not abandon the method |
| Cross-area standard clash | Reconcile; name the clash for the editor |
| Out-of-scope new study | Decline with rationale; offer a scoped alternative |
【Decision】minor / major (R&R) / reject-with-encouragement
【Editor synthesis】2-3 lines on the main changes
【Point-by-point】each comment quoted + response + revised-text location
【Cross-area reconciliation】how divergent referees were each satisfied
【Geography strengthened】concept/spatial-method/cartography improvements
【Cap re-check】within inclusive limit after revisions? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via ScholarOne (aaag-submission for final preflight)
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, editors, and decision categories../../resources/README.md — shared reviewer-objection-checklist backgroundnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annals-aag-skillsStructures a revision and response for Journal of Economic Geography decision letters, balancing cross-disciplinary referee demands from economists and geographers.
Structures response letters for Global Environmental Change (GEC) revise decisions, reconciling interdisciplinary reviewer disagreements. Helps convert each reviewer on their own terms without alienating the editor.
Structures the response letter for an APSR revise-and-resubmit, converting reviewers while keeping the editor confident. Does not fabricate new results.