From est-skills
Structures the response letter and revision for an ES&T journal revision decision, addressing reviewer comments with evidence and QA/QC.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/est-skills:est-revision-and-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
An ES&T **major/minor revision** is a real opening, but acceptance depends on satisfying typically
An ES&T major/minor revision is a real opening, but acceptance depends on satisfying typically three expert reviewers and the editor. Environmental-science reviews tend to demand concrete analytical fixes — more QA/QC, a closed mass balance, added controls, clearer significance — so the response letter must answer each with evidence, not assurances.
est-reporting-and-reproducibility).For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/figure-table/SI location 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 can verify quickly.
Environmental-science reviews cluster into recognizable demands. Decide the response mode per type so the letter reads as evidence, not assurance:
| Reviewer ask | Default response mode | What to show |
|---|---|---|
| "Report detection limits / QA/QC" | concede + add to SI | the blank/recovery/LOD table |
| "Mass balance doesn't close" | concede or bound | closure % and the named missing fraction |
| "Environmental relevance unclear" | defend with framing | tie concentrations/matrix to the real system |
| "Add a control/replicate" | add if feasible | the new result, in a figure/table |
| "Reanalyze censored data" | add | ROS/MLE result vs. original |
| "Conditions unrealistic" | defend or scope | justify, or narrow the claim |
A reviewer on the PFAS-fate paper writes (illustrative): "The transformation claim is unconvincing without recovery and blank data; precursor loss could be sorption." A response that converts the reviewer:
> The transformation claim is unconvincing without recovery and blank data;
> precursor loss could be sorption.
Response: We agree QA/QC was under-reported and that sorption is a competing
explanation. We now report matrix-spike recovery (92±7%, n=6) and field blanks
(<LOQ) in Table S3, and we add an abiotic (autoclaved) control showing <5%
precursor loss (illustrative), ruling out sorption/abiotic pathways as the
dominant sink. The downstream PFHxA increase therefore reflects biotransformation.
Change: Methods p.6; new Figure 3b; Tables S3 and S5; data and code updated on
Zenodo (DOI: illustrative).
The pattern that wins: name the competing explanation the reviewer raised, kill it with a control and reported numbers, and point to the exact location — never promise the fix in prose alone.
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Analytical asks】controls/QA-QC/mass balance addressed with results? [Y/N]
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】significance not diluted? [Y/N]
【SI + deposit updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via the ACS Publishing Center
../../resources/external_tools.md — analysis/QA-QC tools for reviewer-requested additions../../resources/official-source-map.md — decision flow and editor-discretion policynpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin est-skillsStructures 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.
Triage reviewer comments, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response letter for Science journal revisions.
Structures response letters for Global Change Biology revise decisions, addressing reviewer points with evidence and keeping archived data in sync.