From crim-skills
Structures response letters for Criminology journal revise-and-resubmit submissions, addressing multiple expert reviewers while preserving theoretical contribution.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/crim-skills:crim-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
A *Criminology* **R&R is a strong signal** — top criminology journals reserve revisions for papers with
A Criminology R&R is a strong signal — top criminology journals reserve revisions for papers with real promise. But getting to acceptance usually means satisfying several expert reviewers drawn from different disciplines (a developmental psychologist, a quantitative criminologist, a theorist), under the editor's judgment. The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision converges and the contribution survives.
crim-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 every change so the editor and reviewers can verify quickly.
Because the ASC flagship draws reviewers across sociology, psychology, and quantitative criminology, R&R comments often conflict. Sort each by whether it touches the contribution.
| Comment type | Example | Concede or defend? |
|---|---|---|
| Touches identification | "selection into treatment unaddressed" | concede — add within-person/sensitivity analysis |
| Touches measurement | "official records, not offending" | partly concede — add self-report robustness |
| Touches theory | "this isn't really testing GST" | defend if your prediction separates GST from a rival |
| Conflicting asks | one wants 4 trajectory groups, one wants 3 | choose by BIC/AvePP, explain to the editor |
Reviewer 1 (a psychologist) wants a fifth trajectory group; Reviewer 2 (a quantitative criminologist) calls the existing four over-fit. The response reports BIC favoring four and AvePP of 0.84 (illustrative), adds the five-group fit to an appendix showing the extra group is < 3% of the sample and unstable, and tells the editor four is retained on classification grounds. Both reviewers see their point engaged; the contribution holds.
【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】theory + scope conditions intact? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via the official ASC/Wiley online submission link
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review/decision norms and editor-discretion itemsnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin crim-skillsStructures a response letter for an American Sociological Review revise-and-resubmit. Handles cross-method reviewer conflicts and protects the paper's contribution.
Structures 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 British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) revise-and-resubmit, addressing each referee comment and reconciling conflicting demands.