From jais-skills
Plans JAIS revision and drafts point-by-point response, prioritizing the Senior Editor's letter and addressing theory- and method-specific concerns. Use when a revision decision arrives.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jais-skills:jais-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You received a major or minor revision (or a reject-and-resubmit) from JAIS
jais-review-process and revised the manuscriptDo not draft the response letter before the manuscript is actually revised. The response is a map to real changes, not a list of promises. For each point, make the change in the manuscript first; the letter then points to where and how. This matters more at JAIS because the process is developmental — the SE is engaging with the paper's trajectory, and an honest, concrete response shows you used the developmental opportunity rather than deflecting it.
The Senior Editor owns the decision, so the SE's letter sets priorities. Build a triage table: SE-elevated concerns first, then AE and reviewer points, flagging where reviewers conflict. Resolve conflicts in the direction the SE signaled, and say so explicitly when you do. A revision that satisfies every reviewer but misses the SE's central concern fails; a revision that nails the SE's priorities and addresses reviewers proportionately succeeds.
JAIS's developmental ethos rewards engagement over deference, so you may push back on a reviewer point — but do it on evidence, not rhetoric, and never against a position the Senior Editor has already settled. When two reviewers conflict and the SE has signaled a direction, follow it and explain in the letter that you are resolving the conflict per the editor's guidance. A revision that quietly ignores the SE's call, or that argues with the editor's framing, reads as not having understood the developmental conversation — the fastest way to convert a promising R&R into a rejection.
JAIS reviewers span paradigms, so a persuasive response speaks the right dialect of rigor.
| Concern raised | A persuasive JAIS response… |
|---|---|
| Theory contribution unclear / incremental | sharpens the new construct or framework, restates the contribution sentence, and shows what the field now knows that it did not |
| Behavioral validity / common-method bias | adds procedural evidence, a marker/method-factor test, or shows interactions survive — not just a Harman test |
| Economics identification | adds placebo/event-study evidence, alternative specifications, sensitivity to the key assumption |
| Design science evaluation | adds baselines, ablations, or a field/expert evaluation tying results to design propositions |
| Qualitative trustworthiness | strengthens the data structure, audit trail, and representative evidence |
Note the first row: at JAIS, a "thin contribution" challenge is answered with theory, not with more robustness checks. Reviewers here will not accept additional analyses as a substitute for a sharpened theoretical payoff.
If the revision changes the empirical core, refresh the materials JAIS requires: the correlation/covariance matrix plus descriptives for SEM work, and the anonymized dataset that must be available on request to SEs/reviewers. Note in the letter what you updated.
Revisions grow papers, but JAIS still flags manuscripts over ~15,000 words and will not review beyond 65 pages. Plan offsetting cuts (tighter framing, consolidated exhibits) as part of the revision. Keep the manuscript double-blind — neutral self-citations, no identifying info — while it is still under review, and confirm the revised paper still fits its declared category.
Senior Editors at JAIS are reading for whether the paper's trajectory has improved, so open the letter with a short synopsis: restate the sharpened contribution in one sentence, then list the two or three most consequential changes. This frames the point-by-point that follows and lets a developmental SE confirm quickly that you moved the paper where the editorial team hoped. Bury the contribution restatement at the end and you force the editor to reconstruct your logic from scattered replies.
【Journal】Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS)
【Decision being answered】major / minor / reject-and-resubmit
【SE-first triage】ranked changes made
【Contribution response】theory sharpened (not substituted by analysis): yes/fix
【Rigor responses】behavioral / economics / design science / qualitative evidence added
【Data materials updated】matrix/descriptives + anonymized dataset: yes
【Length & anonymity】within budget; double-blind preserved: yes
【Response letter】point-by-point, cross-referenced: ready
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jais-skillsPlans MIS Quarterly revisions and drafts point-by-point response letters, prioritizing the Senior Editor's letter and addressing tradition-specific rigor concerns.
Plans and drafts point-by-point response letters for JMIS major/minor revisions, triaging referee concerns and prioritizing AE guidance.
Drafts the point-by-point response letter for a Journal of Management R&R, handling reviewer conflicts, editor-first strategy, and 50-page limit compliance.