From jpsp-skills
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.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jpsp-skills:jpsp-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
A JPSP decision comes from **one section's editor** synthesizing **masked reviewers**. The section's
A JPSP decision comes from one section's editor synthesizing masked reviewers. The section's framing matters: in IRGP terms, the editor has judged your central limitations (must-fix for interpretability) versus peripheral ones, and whether central issues are fixable with existing vs. new data. Your response letter must show you understood that distinction and addressed the central limitations first.
jpsp-open-science-and-transparency).In IRGP terms the editor has already sorted concerns into central vs. peripheral and existing-data vs. new-data. Mirror that sort in your reply so the editor sees you understood the decision.
| Reviewer concern | Likely tier | Response that fits JPSP |
|---|---|---|
| "Key study is underpowered" | central, existing data | Re-analyze with smallest-effect framing; pool into the internal meta-analysis; report the updated CI |
| "Effect could be a confound" | central, existing or new | A focused alternative-explanation analysis; add one targeted study only if no existing data isolates it |
| "Theory not advanced beyond demonstration" | central, conceptual | Sharpen the contribution and diagnostic hypotheses; a new study rarely fixes a thin idea |
| "Add a fourth manipulation check" | peripheral | Do it briefly or justify; do not let it crowd out the central fix |
A central limitation needing new studies means a rejected paper resubmitted later is treated as a new submission (IRGP guidance; confirm per section).
Illustrative — invented decision to show the structure, not a real letter.
Editor's synthesis: "innovative idea, but S2's null is a central concern." R1 wants a new study; R2 calls the mediation over-claimed.
【Decision】accept-with-revision / R&R (section: ASC/IRGP/PPID)
【Editor's central concerns】listed first
【Per concern】central vs peripheral · existing-data fix vs new study · what changed (page/line)
【Internal meta-analysis】updated if results changed? [Y/N]
【Transparency】prereg/JARS/repository updated? [Y/N]
【Caps respected】revision still within word + study limits? [Y/N]
【Tone】point-by-point, evidence-based, conflicts surfaced for the editor
../../resources/external_tools.md — re-analysis, metafor (updated meta-analysis), repository tools../../resources/official-source-map.md — IRGP decision categories and central/peripheral framingnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jpsp-skillsDrafts response letters for Journal of Consumer Psychology R&R, converting reviewer concerns into new studies and structuring point-by-point rebuttals.
Plans 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).
Drafts point-by-point responses and revision plans for Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) decision letters, addressing coverage gaps, balance, framework, accessibility, and open-science requests.