From lancet-skills
Triage Lancet review decisions, answer statistical and clinical comments, and draft a point-by-point response letter that quotes reviewers, provides evidence, and uses cautious causal language.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/lancet-skills:lancet-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- A decision letter arrives (reject / major or minor revision).
The editor's framing outranks individual reviewers. Identify:
A "we would consider a revised manuscript" is an invitation gated on the deal-breaker. Don't treat it as a flat reject, but don't under-deliver.
The Lancet routinely uses a statistical reviewer. Treat their comments as a distinct, high-priority track:
| Bucket | Action |
|---|---|
| Do (fair, feasible) | Make the change; show it; quote the new text/table/figure. |
| Do-partial | Do what is feasible; explain the boundary with evidence. |
| Defend (incorrect/out of scope) | Push back respectfully, with data/citations — not assertion. |
| Defer (future work) | Acknowledge; add a sentence to the text; don't over-promise. |
Most rejections-on-revision come from silently skipping a load-bearing comment or defending where a re-analysis was actually needed.
For each comment:
Reviewer N (or Statistical Reviewer), Comment k: <verbatim quote of the reviewer>
Response: <what we did / our reasoning>. <Evidence: new table/figure, re-analysis,
effect with 95% CI.>
Changes: "<quoted new manuscript text>" (p. X, lines Y–Z; new table/figure/appendix).
If new studies appeared during review, re-run or update the systematic search and revise "Evidence before this study" and "Implications of all the available evidence" accordingly — and note this in the response (see lancet-research-in-context).
The comments that decide a Lancet revision cluster around the venue's identity: registration integrity, the statistical reviewer's re-analysis requests, claim calibration, and the global-health/equity framing. The fix for each is concrete, never rhetorical — the editor verifies it against quoted new text.
| Reviewer comment | The venue-specific fix |
|---|---|
| "Trial not prospectively registered." | Disclose exact registration/enrolment dates; if retrospective, flag it and explain — do not bury it |
| "Primary outcome switched." | Reconcile to the registered outcome, or document the dated change; label post-hoc analyses |
| "Causal claim outruns the design." | Narrow the title, abstract Interpretation, and Discussion; say you narrowed it |
| "Global-health relevance / equity not addressed." | Add the LMIC/PROGRESS-Plus framing in Interpretation; coordinate with lancet-fit |
| "Statistical reviewer: add ITT/sensitivity analysis." | Run the re-analysis; report effect + 95% CI; show it as a new table, not prose |
| "Reporting checklist incomplete." | Complete and page/line-map the EQUATOR checklist; resubmit as a supplement |
A statistical-reviewer comment on a hypothetical superiority RCT, answered the Lancet way.
Statistical Reviewer, Comment 3: "The primary analysis is reported as per-protocol.
For a superiority trial, the intention-to-treat population should lead."
Response: We agree. We have made the pre-specified ITT analysis primary, with
per-protocol as a labelled sensitivity analysis. The conclusion is unchanged.
Evidence (illustrative): ITT response 60.0% vs 50.2%, absolute risk difference
9.8 pp (95% CI 5.4-14.2; p=0.0003); per-protocol 62.1% vs 50.0% (RD 12.1 pp,
95% CI 7.3-16.9) -> consistent.
Changes: "The primary analysis was by intention to treat..." (p. 8, lines 12-19;
new Table 2 row; appendix table S4 for per-protocol).
The request is answered with an actual re-analysis carrying effects and 95% CIs, the ITT/per-protocol order is corrected, and the new manuscript text is quoted so the editor can verify without hunting — the pattern that converts a statistical-reviewer comment into an accept.
【Decision type】 reject / major / minor
【Editor's load-bearing concerns】 [...]
【Deal-breaker】 ... → plan to resolve
【Statistical-reviewer track】 [...] → re-analyses planned
【Comment triage】 Do [...] / Do-partial [...] / Defend [...] / Defer [...]
【Claim integrity】 any narrowing of causal/practice claims needed? (re-check lancet-fit)
【Panel update】 systematic search re-run? Evidence-before / Implications revised? yes/no
【Response letter】 drafted point-by-point with quoted changes
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin lancet-skillsTriages NEJM reviews (including statistical reviewer comments), formulates a revision strategy, and drafts a point-by-point response letter quoting reviewer comments, responses, and revised text.
Structures point-by-point responses to JAMA editor and reviewer comments after a revise decision, including statistical-review queries. Does not fabricate new analyses or overstate changes.
Drafts response-to-referees letters and revision plans for REStat decision letters. Structures point-by-point replies, triages comments, and flags identification/measurement objections.