From io-skills
Structures the response to an International Organization (IO) revise-and-resubmit decision, addressing anonymous expert reviews and editor adjudication while keeping the manuscript double-blind and results re-runnable.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/io-skills:io-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
An IO **R&R is a strong signal** — first-round accepts are rare at the field's leading IR journal. The
An IO R&R is a strong signal — first-round accepts are rare at the field's leading IR journal. The editors return anonymous expert reviews with a decision letter and adjudicate, so the response must move every reviewer toward yes on the IR theory and design while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent — and keep the package verifiable for the post-conditional-acceptance check.
io-transparency-and-data-policy).For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree, in IR terms].
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.
Most IO R&R comments fall into a few families, each with a concede-or-rebut posture that protects the generalizable IR claim.
| Referee objection | Default posture | The move |
|---|---|---|
| "Selection into treaty membership" | concede, defend design | add a ratification-timing/instrument or selection model; report what changes |
| "Mechanism institution→outcome unspecified" | concede | state the cross-border mechanism and add its observable implication as a test |
| Rationalist vs. constructivist referees clash | adjudicate openly | pick the path consistent with your theory; explain the tradeoff to the editor |
Reviewer 2 (rationalist) calls the treaty-compliance result "just selection." Reviewer 1 (constructivist) wants more on norm internalization. The editor flags selection as decisive. The response (a) answers the editor's decisive point first — a ratification-timing design plus sensitivity analysis shows the effect attenuates by about a third but stays positive (illustrative), in a new SI table; (b) reconciles the paradigm conflict openly — R1's norm channel enters as a scope-conditioning mechanism, not a rival, consistent with the commitment theory; (c) ends each entry with the section/table location. The revised analysis stays scripted so IO's post-acceptance re-run still passes.
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Paradigm/referee conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of the generalizable IR claim? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + verifiable package/proofs maintained】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, anonymous reviews to author, verification-before-final-acceptance policynpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin io-skillsStructures 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.
Structures the response memorandum for an AJPS revise-and-resubmit, handling reviewer comments, reconciling conflicts, and ensuring double-blind and re-runnable constraints.