From psychbull-skills
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.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/psychbull-skills:psychbull-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
A Psychological Bulletin **R&R** on a synthesis is distinctive: reviewer requests often touch the
A Psychological Bulletin R&R on a synthesis is distinctive: reviewer requests often touch the search, eligibility, coding, model, or bias analyses — any of which can ripple through every downstream estimate, table, and figure. The response letter must convert each reviewer and keep the editor confident without breaking the synthesis's internal consistency or its deposited package.
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page; new k; table/figure number; updated estimate].
Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor (especially any change in study count or model); group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of every change for quick verification.
Illustrative numbers only. The self-affirmation synthesis returns with an R&R: Reviewer 1 wants the search expanded to two more databases; Reviewer 2 calls the delivery-format moderator post-hoc; Reviewer 3 wants a selection model added. Under this skill's rules the response propagates cleanly:
| Reviewer comment | Response move |
|---|---|
| "Search not exhaustive / PRISMA gaps" | Add databases, re-run downstream estimates, state the new k, regenerate the flow |
| "Moderators are post-hoc fishing" | Cite the registered protocol; keep pre-specified ones confirmatory, relabel any unplanned as exploratory |
| "Only one bias test" | Add converging diagnostics; report how the bottom line moves |
| "Reviewers disagree on inclusion" | Choose one principled rule, apply it, explain the tradeoff |
| "No integration beyond tallying" | Strengthen the contribution per psychbull-theory-integration |
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Re-run propagated】new k; all estimates/exhibits consistent? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained? [Y/N]
【Masked + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager
../../resources/external_tools.md — re-running the search/analysis; keeping the package in sync../../resources/official-source-map.md — masked review and transparency policy behind the responsenpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin psychbull-skillsStructures 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.
Plans revisions and drafts point-by-point response letters for RER review/meta-analysis decision letters. Helps triage reviewer comments and decide which requests to adopt or push back on.
Structures 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.