From jpam-skills
Structures a JPAM revise-and-resubmit response letter to satisfy identification and policy reviewers while protecting credible core results and keeping the editor confident.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jpam-skills:jpam-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
A JPAM **R&R is a strong signal**, but at a cross-disciplinary venue the response letter must satisfy
A JPAM R&R is a strong signal, but at a cross-disciplinary venue the response letter must satisfy two kinds of reviewer at once — one focused on identification and one on policy relevance — while the editor adjudicates. Move every reviewer toward yes, protect the credibly identified result from dilution, and keep the deposited replication materials in sync with the revised exhibits.
jpam-transparency-and-data).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 the change so the editor can verify quickly.
| Comment signal | Who owns the call | Default move in the response |
|---|---|---|
| Editor flags it as decisive | editor | solve first, headline it in the cover note |
| Identification reviewer wants more robustness | author | run it; show the result is not knife-edge |
| Policy reviewer wants a bolder/broader claim | author | extend the implication only as far as the design + scope conditions allow |
| Two reviewers want opposite things | editor | pick a principled path, explain the tradeoff openly |
| Reviewer questions the cost-benefit assumptions | author | add sensitivity analysis; do not present a point ratio as certain |
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Two-reviewer reconciliation】identification vs policy resolved + explained? [Y/N]
【Core protected】implication still calibrated to the design? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Wiley Research Exchange
../../resources/official-source-map.md — decision categories and review-model guardrails../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/reviewer-objection-checklist.md — pre-empt the identification objections before they recurnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jpam-skillsStructures a response letter for a JOP revise-and-resubmit that addresses each reviewer comment, respects page budget, preserves double-blind anonymity, and maintains replicability for the JOP replication check.
Structures response letters for Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART) revise-and-resubmit decisions. Helps convert reviewers while preserving theoretical contribution.
Structures the response letter for an APSR revise-and-resubmit, converting reviewers while keeping the editor confident. Does not fabricate new results.