From asr-skills
Structures a response letter for an American Sociological Review revise-and-resubmit. Handles cross-method reviewer conflicts and protects the paper's contribution.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/asr-skills:asr-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
An ASR **R&R** is the normal road to publication for a promising paper — and it usually asks for
An ASR R&R is the normal road to publication for a promising paper — and it usually asks for substantial revision. Reviewers often come from different methodological traditions, so the response letter must satisfy a skeptic of your method without breaking the paper, while the editor adjudicates.
asr-data-and-transparency).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.
ASR R&Rs are substantial and the panel often crosses traditions, so sort every comment before drafting. The editors adjudicate; the letter's job is to make adjudication easy.
| Comment type | Default response |
|---|---|
| Editor's decisive point | do it; never argue these away |
| Result you can produce | run it; report honestly even if mixed |
| Cross-method standard | meet it on its own terms |
| Request that dilutes significance | rebut respectfully with a reason |
A neighborhood-effects paper gets an R&R where R1 (quant) wants a sibling fixed-effects check and R2 (ethnographic) doubts the mechanism is social rather than selection.
R1: "Add within-family comparison."
Response: Sibling FE (Table 4); effect attenuates 0.31→0.22 SD, still significant (CI 0.09–0.35).
R2: "Could be selection, not a social process."
Response: Placebo on pre-move outcomes (null, CI −0.04–0.06) + 6 excerpts illustrating the
mechanism. Change: §5.3, Appendix B.
The letter concedes where evidence warrants and protects the contribution by showing the mechanism survives the cross-method probe.
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Cross-method conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of broad significance? [Y/N]
【Masking + documentation updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Sage Track
../../resources/official-source-map.md — ASR review model and ethicsnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin asr-skillsStructures the response letter for an APSR revise-and-resubmit, converting reviewers while keeping the editor confident. Does not fabricate new results.
Structures the response letter for an American Educational Research Journal revise-and-resubmit, addressing editor and reviewer comments while protecting the paper's contribution.
Drafts point-by-point response letters for Administrative Science Quarterly R&R submissions after manuscript revisions are complete. Structures cover notes, reviewer comment handling, and summaries of major changes.