| 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
- 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.
- 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.
- Strengthen, don't just defend. Where a request improves the review (more robustness, clearer framework), do it; reviewers reward visible engagement.
- Push back with evidence, respectfully. If a request is out of scope or methodologically wrong, decline with a reasoned, cited explanation — not silence.
- 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
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)
