From psci-skills
Structures a point-by-point response letter for a Psychological Science R&R, addressing reviewer requests for robustness, disclosure, and transparency while managing the journal's tight word budget.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/psci-skills:psci-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
A Psychological Science **R&R** typically asks for **more robustness, fuller disclosure, or stronger
A Psychological Science R&R typically asks for more robustness, fuller disclosure, or stronger transparency — and all of it has to fit back inside a very tight word format. The response letter must convert every reviewer and reassure the editor on credibility, while keeping the paper within budget.
psci-open-science-and-transparency).For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Main text section, supplement section, or table/figure number].
Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location (note when content went to the supplement to protect the word budget).
For the two-study attention package, an R&R asked for power, a replication, and tighter disclosure.
> R2: Study 1 (N = 240) feels underpowered for a d ≈ 0.3 effect.
Response: We agree precision matters here. Study 1 had ~80% power for
d = 0.36 (sensitivity analysis now in Methods). To address fragility we
added Study 2 (N = 300), which directly replicates the effect
(d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.06, 0.51]). Pooled estimate: d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.13, 0.49].
Change: Main text Methods (power), Results (Study 2); robustness grid → Supplement S3.
> R1: The trait-anxiety interaction looks post hoc.
Response: Correct — it was exploratory in Study 1 and we now say so
explicitly. We preregistered it for Study 2; it is labeled confirmatory
only there.
Change: Results (status labels); Research Transparency Statement updated.
| Reviewer ask | Default home (protects the 2,000-word core) | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Added robustness / specification grid | supplemental online material | summarize in one sentence in main text |
| New confirmatory study | Methods/Results (it is the contribution) | preregister it; update Transparency Statement |
| Fuller disclosure of exclusions/measures | Methods + Transparency Statement | a table, not prose, to save words |
| "Soften the claim" | Discussion | scale the wording to the CI, not the p-value |
| Effect-size/CI reporting | tables and inline | route exhibits to psci-tables-figures |
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Credibility strengthened】power/robustness/disclosure/transparency improved? [Y/N]
【Word budget】new material in supplement; core ≤ 2,000? [Y/N]
【Open-science updated】scripts/data/Transparency Statement in sync? [Y/N]
【Anonymization intact】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Manuscript Central
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, transparency weighting, formatnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin psci-skillsStructures the response letter for a Journal of Educational Psychology R&R, addressing requested methodological rigor, JARS disclosure, and transparency while keeping the manuscript masked and within format.
Structures a response letter for a Journal of Applied Psychology revise-and-resubmit, addressing reviewer comments on theory, rigor, and transparency.
Structures a response letter for a Psychological Bulletin revise-and-resubmit on a meta-analysis. Use when reviewer requests demand changes to the search, eligibility, model, or bias analyses.