| name | gec-revision-and-rebuttal |
| description | Use when writing the response to a Global Environmental Change (GEC) revise decision. GEC reviewers are interdisciplinary and often disagree across disciplines, so the response must convert each reviewer on their own terms without alienating the handling editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results. |
Revision & Rebuttal (gec-revision-and-rebuttal)
A GEC major/minor revision is a real opportunity, but the manuscript usually faces reviewers from
different disciplines who may pull in opposite directions (a natural-scientist wants more data; a
governance scholar wants more theory). The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while
keeping the handling editor confident the revision is convergent and the human-dimensions contribution
is intact.
When to trigger
- A revise decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Reviewers disagree with each other (often across disciplines) and you must reconcile
- A reviewer requests analyses or framing that would change the paper's claims
- Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision
Strategy
- Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The handling editor signals which points are decisive;
solve those first. The editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
- One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never
skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
- Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the
new text/table/figure number), or push back respectfully with a reason (framework, design, or
evidence). A well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the paper.
- Reconcile cross-disciplinary conflicts openly. When a domain reviewer and a social-science
reviewer want opposite things, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the
editor. Translate each reviewer's concern into terms the others can see.
- Protect the contribution. Add robustness and clarification; resist changes that dilute the
human-dimensions / policy contribution that earned the revision. Defend scope conditions rather than
over-claiming.
- Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-anonymized), and update the Data
Availability Statement and archive so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see
gec-submission).
Response-letter format
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].
Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with
the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly.
Anti-patterns
- Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
- Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic just to please one reviewer
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
- "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
- Letting a domain reviewer's demand quietly erode the social-science contribution
- New exhibits drifting out of sync with the deposited archive
Output format
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Cross-disciplinary conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】human-dimensions contribution intact? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + data statement/archive updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit through Elsevier's online submission system
Supplementary resources
