From jcp-skills
Drafts response letters for Journal of Consumer Psychology R&R, converting reviewer concerns into new studies and structuring point-by-point rebuttals.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jcp-skills:jcp-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You have a JCP **major revision** and must write the response letter and revise
At a process journal, you rarely win an R&R by argument alone. The strongest JCP responses to "the mechanism isn't established" run the study the reviewer implies — a manipulated-mediator or moderation-of-process experiment that turns the effect off when the process is blocked — and then say, plainly, "We agree this was a gap; Study 4 now demonstrates the process directly." Reviewers in the SCP community respond well to authors who treat the critique as a chance to strengthen the mechanism rather than to defend the original draft. Lead with what you did, not with why the reviewer is wrong.
| Reviewer demand | Winning response |
|---|---|
| "Effect in search of a process" | Add a manipulated-mediator / moderation-of-process study; report it as the new centerpiece |
| "Alternative explanation X" | Add a study whose moderation your process predicts but X does not; or measure and rule out X |
| "Underpowered / not pre-registered" | Pre-register and replicate the key study at adequate power; report the OSF link |
| "Stimulus-bound" | Add a study with a new operationalization/population or a consequential behavioral DV |
| "Measured mediation is weak" | Upgrade to experimental mediation; reframe the original as supporting, not dispositive |
【Editor's binding concern】restated in one line
【New studies added】which, and the result (effect size + CI) reported in the letter
【Mechanism now established by】the manipulated-mediator / moderation-of-process study
【Alternatives ruled out】how (design/data)
【Disagreements】where, with what evidence, aligned with editor
【Tone check】concise, respectful, non-defensive? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne; if reject, jcp-review-process to reroute
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jcp-skillsPlans and drafts a point-by-point response letter for a JCR revise-and-resubmit, including triaging reviewer concerns, adding required studies/analyses, and satisfying transparency mandates (data posting).
Guides response strategy for JPSP revise-and-resubmit or accept-with-revision decisions, helping determine when reviewer concerns need new analyses, meta-analysis updates, or new studies.
Plans a JM revision and drafts the point-by-point response letter, prioritizing the Coeditor's decisive concerns and strengthening substantive novelty and managerial relevance.