proghg-revision

Revision & Response for a Review (proghg-revision)

When to trigger

• An editor/referee letter on the review or progress report arrived
• Referees flagged missing literatures/traditions, imbalance, mischaracterization, partisanship, or "reads like a list"
• The editor asked to expand, cut, or rebalance coverage, or to sharpen the conceptual argument
• You need a point-by-point response for a review article, not an empirical paper

Categories of review feedback (and how to answer each)

PiHG revision asks cluster differently from empirical-paper asks. Triage every point into one bucket:

Feedback type	Typical phrasing	Response move
Coverage gap	"you omit the X literature / author Y / the Z tradition"	almost always concede and integrate — place the missing work in the right framework cell; re-run saturation (proghg-literature-synthesis) and update the coverage account
Fairness / reflexivity	"this slights tradition Z / is partisan / over-cites the author"	steelman the slighted side; surface positionality; re-audit self-citation and tradition balance (proghg-comprehensiveness-and-balance)
Appraisal accuracy	"you mischaracterize work W"	correct precisely; reviewed authors often referee — fix exactly
Conceptual argument / structure	"this is an annotated bibliography / a neutral roundup"	strengthen or make explicit the spine and the position (proghg-organizing-framework); do not just reorder paragraphs
Accessibility	"a geographer outside the subfield can't follow Section 4"	add intuition, define jargon (proghg-writing-style)
Scope / strand / length	"too broad / wrong strand / overruns length"	negotiate with the editor (proghg-editor-strategy); rescope deliberately, within the strand envelope
Conceptual-not-empirical	"this reads like an empirical paper / has original cases"	remove original data/cases; reframe as critical synthesis (PiHG publishes no empirical results)
Transparency	"how did you decide what to include? from what standpoint?"	document/expand the coverage account + positionality (proghg-transparency-and-reproducibility)

Writing the response letter

• Point-by-point, quote-then-respond. Reproduce each comment, then state the change and where it lives (section/page/table).
• Coverage asks: concede and integrate. A missing literature or tradition is a real defect in a state-of-the-art review; adding it strengthens the article. Resist defensiveness — the omitting author may be the referee who named it.
• Fairness asks: show the steelman and the reflexivity. Demonstrate the revised text states the other side at its strongest and, where partisanship was alleged, surfaces the author's standpoint openly. If a tradition was slighted, show it is now weighed on its own terms.
• Accuracy asks: fix exactly. Mischaracterizing a reviewed author who is your referee is the fastest route to a hostile second round; correct the wording precisely and, where helpful, quote their own framing.
• Argument asks: sharpen the spine, don't reshuffle. An "annotated bibliography" or "neutral roundup" critique demands a stronger conceptual argument and a clearer position, not reordered paragraphs.
• Disagree rarely and respectfully. If an ask would break the spine or overrun the strand envelope, explain the trade-off and propose an alternative, ideally pre-cleared with the editor.
• Keep the editor central. On scope, strand, and conflicting referee asks, ask the editor to adjudicate rather than satisfying mutually-incompatible referees.
• Track every addition's ripple. Adding a literature can shift the review's center of gravity; after each integration, re-check that the framework cells, the exhibits, the balance audit, and the coverage account still hold, and that the draft still fits the strand's length.

Checklist

• Every comment triaged into a bucket (coverage / fairness / appraisal / argument / accessibility / scope / conceptual / transparency)
• Coverage gaps conceded and integrated into the right framework cell; saturation + coverage account re-run
• Fairness complaints answered by demonstrable steelmanning, surfaced positionality, and self-citation/tradition re-audit
• Mischaracterizations corrected precisely (reviewed authors may be the referees)
• "Annotated bibliography / roundup" asks answered by a stronger/explicit spine and position, not reordering
• Accessibility fixes add intuition / define jargon for the cross-subfield reader
• Any original empirical content removed if flagged as out of scope
• Scope/strand conflicts routed to the editor; rework fits the strand envelope
• Point-by-point letter: quote-then-respond, with section/page/table locations
• Comprehensiveness + balance + coverage account re-audited after all additions

Anti-patterns

• Defending an omission rather than adding the missing literature/tradition (a review gap is a real defect)
• Answering a fairness complaint with assertions of balance instead of revised, steelmanned text and surfaced positionality
• Dismissing or re-mischaracterizing a reviewed author who is likely your referee
• "Fixing" an annotated-bibliography critique by shuffling paragraphs without strengthening the argument
• Bloating scope to satisfy every "also cover…" until the review overruns its strand limit
• Trying to satisfy two contradictory referees instead of asking the editor to decide

Output format

【Triage】each comment bucketed (coverage/fairness/appraisal/argument/accessibility/scope/conceptual/transparency)? Y/N
【Coverage gaps】conceded + integrated into framework cells; saturation + account re-run? Y/N
【Fairness】steelman + positionality shown in revised text; self-citation + tradition balance re-audited? Y/N
【Appraisal fixes】mischaracterizations corrected precisely? Y/N
【Argument asks】spine + position strengthened/made explicit (not reordered)? Y/N
【Scope/strand】fits the strand envelope; any empirical content removed if flagged? Y/N
【Letter】point-by-point, quote-then-respond, with locations? Y/N
【Next step】→ proghg-submission (re-submit the revised review)