From orgsci-skills
Plans revisions and drafts a point-by-point response letter for Organization Science R&R, following journal norms: verbatim italic quoting, no duplicated responses, non-combative tone, prioritizing the senior editor.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/orgsci-skills:orgsci-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You received a major/minor R&R and need to plan revisions and write the response
A response letter is only as good as the revision behind it. Re-derive the overall contribution the SE asked for (orgsci-contribution-framing), strengthen the mechanism and design logic where identification is impossible (orgsci-methods / orgsci-data-analysis), and update the exhibits. Then write the letter to a manuscript you have actually changed.
Organization Science's official length policy spells out how to write the response, and editors expect it:
The Senior Editor decides autonomously (accept/reject/R&R), so the SE's synthesis sets your priorities. When a reviewer's request conflicts with the SE's direction or the paper's contribution, follow the SE's framing and explain courteously. Group changes so the SE sees the contribution is sharper, the mechanism better supported, and the level-of-analysis logic clean.
Build the response around the Senior Editor's synthesis:
| Concern | SE priority? | Manuscript action | Response handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contribution / theoretical mechanism | High if named by SE | Rewrite intro, theory, discussion; align abstract | Lead with this in the cover summary |
| Level of analysis / boundary | High when reviewers conflict | Clarify unit, cross-level logic, and scope | Explain tradeoff once; cross-reference repeated comments |
| Method / evidence | High if inference is challenged | Add robustness, alternative explanation checks, or qualitative evidence | Point to main text or appendix exhibit |
| Formatting / policy | Usually lower but easy to fix | Apply quote, appendix, anonymization, length rules | Brief factual response |
The ledger prevents two common failures: a long letter that ignores the SE's decisive issue, and duplicated answers that violate the journal's response norms.
【Revision done first】contribution re-sharpened, mechanism/design strengthened, exhibits updated
【Response format】verbatim italic quotes, one answer per shared point, courteous & substantive
【SE priority】SE concerns addressed first; reviewer conflicts adjudicated to SE framing
【Revision ledger】SE-priority / manuscript action / response handling complete
【New work】appendix-housed analyses; anonymization preserved
【Window】resubmit within 6 months unless the editor grants an exception
【Next step】orgsci-submission (resubmit) → orgsci-review-process
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin orgsci-skillsDrafts point-by-point rebuttal letters and revision plans for Organization Studies R&Rs, triaging theory-level, method, and reviewer-disagreement comments.
Drafts point-by-point response letters for Administrative Science Quarterly R&R submissions after manuscript revisions are complete. Structures cover notes, reviewer comment handling, and summaries of major changes.
Structures the response letter for an American Educational Research Journal revise-and-resubmit, addressing editor and reviewer comments while protecting the paper's contribution.