revedres-revision

name	revedres-revision
description	Use when an editor/reviewer decision letter arrives on a Review of Educational Research (RER) review or meta-analysis and you must plan the revision and response. Turns the letter into action and a point-by-point reply; it does not run the submission preflight (revedres-submission) or re-architect the framework from scratch (revedres-organizing-framework).

Revision (revedres-revision)

When to trigger

• An RER decision letter arrived (major/minor revision, or reject-and-resubmit)
• You must convert masked reviewer comments into a revision plan and a response letter
• Reviewers ask for a wider search, more coding detail, or stronger robustness
• You need to decide which requests to adopt and which to push back on, with evidence

Read the decision the way RER editors mean it

RER reviews are refereed against rigor of the synthesis and rigor of the review process. Most revision requests fall into recognizable buckets — diagnose each before drafting.

Reviewer request	What it really demands	Skill to revisit
"Expand/justify the search"	a more exhaustive or better-documented search; updated PRISMA	revedres-literature-synthesis
"This reads as a summary"	a stronger, more reconciling organizing framework	revedres-organizing-framework
"Address heterogeneity / bias"	I², moderators, funnel/Egger, sensitivity analyses	revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance
"Coding reliability unclear"	reported κ/ICC and a shared codebook	revedres-transparency-and-reproducibility
"You vote-count conflicting work"	weigh by estimand + design; steelman camps	revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance
"Over-reliance on your own work"	re-balance citations identity-blind	revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance
"Tighten / APA / abstract"	prose, APA 7, ≤150-word abstract	revedres-writing-style

How to revise so the second round is clean

1. Triage the whole letter first. Group comments by theme (search, framework, analysis, transparency, writing) and by editor vs. reviewer weight — the editor's summary signals what is decisive.
2. Update the search if asked — and re-run the PRISMA flow. An expanded search changes counts everywhere; propagate them through tables, the meta-analysis, and the prose.
3. Strengthen, don't just defend. Where a request improves the review (more robustness, clearer framework), do it; reviewers reward visible engagement.
4. Push back with evidence, respectfully. If a request is out of scope or methodologically wrong, decline with a reasoned, cited explanation — not silence.
5. Keep changes traceable. A point-by-point response: quote each comment, state the change, and cite the manuscript location (page/section). Provide a tracked-changes version if requested.

Drafting the response letter

• Open with gratitude and a short summary of the main changes.
• Point-by-point, in the reviewers' order: comment → response → exact change + location.
• Be specific: "We added a PsycINFO + ProQuest Dissertations search (PRISMA updated: 412→468 included); see Table 2 and Figure 1."
• Flag any protocol deviations the revision introduces, and justify them.
• Stay calm and collegial even with a harsh review — the editor is the audience.

Checklist

• Whole letter triaged by theme and by editor/reviewer weight
• Search updated if requested; PRISMA counts re-run and propagated to tables/analysis/prose
• Heterogeneity / bias / sensitivity additions made where asked
• Coding reliability (κ/ICC) and codebook added/clarified if flagged
• Conflicting-evidence handling moved from vote-count to credibility-weighted
• Self-citation balance re-checked if raised
• APA 7 / abstract / prose tightened per comments
• Point-by-point response: comment → response → exact change + location, for every point
• Out-of-scope/incorrect requests declined with reasoned, cited justification
• Protocol deviations introduced by the revision flagged and justified

Anti-patterns

• A defensive letter that argues with reviewers instead of improving the review
• Silently ignoring comments the author dislikes (reviewers re-check every one)
• Expanding the search but failing to update the PRISMA flow, tables, and pooled estimates
• "We have addressed this" with no location and no specific change described
• Adding robustness checks but burying contradictory results they surface
• Treating a reject-and-resubmit as a rejection rather than an invitation to rebuild and return

Output format

【Decision】major | minor | reject-and-resubmit
【Triage】comments grouped by theme + editor/reviewer weight? Y/N
【Search updated】PRISMA re-run + propagated to tables/analysis/prose? Y/N
【Analysis adds】heterogeneity / bias / sensitivity added where asked? Y/N
【Transparency adds】κ/ICC + codebook clarified if flagged? Y/N
【Balance】conflict handling credibility-weighted; self-cites re-balanced? Y/N
【Response letter】point-by-point with exact change + location for every comment? Y/N
【Push-backs】out-of-scope/incorrect requests declined with cited reasons? Y/N
【Next step】→ revedres-submission (re-run preflight before resubmitting)