| name | mind-revision-and-response |
| description | Use when responding to a Mind decision — a revise-and-resubmit, a reject-with-encouragement, or referee reports to address before resubmitting. The response must answer expert philosophical objections without weakening the thesis, while keeping the manuscript prepared for triple-anonymous review. Structures the revision and the response letter; it does not fabricate new arguments. |
Revision & Response (mind-revision-and-response)
A Mind decision that invites resubmission is a strong signal at a venue with >800 submissions a
year. The referees are expert and their objections are philosophical, not procedural. The task is to
answer each objection on its merits — rebut, concede-and-limit, or bite the bullet — without
diluting the thesis that earned the invitation, and to keep the resubmission prepared for
triple-anonymous review.
When to trigger
- A revise-and-resubmit or reject-with-encouragement arrived and you are planning the revision
- Referees disagree with each other and you must decide whom to follow
- A referee raises an objection that would, if right, change the conclusion
- Writing the response letter / cover note that accompanies the resubmission
Strategy
- Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which objections are decisive. Solve
those first; the editor adjudicates disagreements among referees.
- One point-by-point response, every objection addressed. Quote each referee point, then respond.
Never skip one — silence reads as evasion to an expert reader.
- Answer philosophically, not deferentially. For each objection do one of three things and say
which: rebut (show it fails, with a reason), concede and limit (narrow the thesis so it no
longer bites), or bite the bullet (accept the cost and argue it is worth paying). A well-argued
disagreement earns more respect than a capitulation that breaks the argument.
- Protect the thesis. Sharpen, qualify, and add the missing reply — but resist changes that hollow
out the central claim. Defend scope conditions rather than retreating into vagueness.
- Reconcile conflicting referees openly. When one wants the opposite of another, say so, choose a
principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor. Do not silently satisfy one and ignore the other.
- Keep it anonymous and house-style-ready. The resubmission must remain prepared for
triple-anonymous review (no self-identifying additions), line-numbered, and consistent with the
MIND house style for any accepted-stage copy (see
mind-citation-and-style, mind-submission).
Response-letter format
For each referee point:
> [Quoted referee comment]
Response: [Rebut / concede-and-limit / bite-the-bullet — with the actual reason].
Change: [Section / page / line numbers where the revision appears].
Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by referee; end each entry with
the location of the change so the editor and referees can verify quickly.
Worked micro-example: one response entry
- Weak: "We thank the referee for this insightful comment and have revised accordingly." — no tag,
no reason, no location; an expert referee reads this as evasion dressed up as courtesy.
- Strong: "> The counterexample in §3 also refutes premise 2. — Rebut: the case trades on an
equivocation between propositional and doxastic justification; premise 2 concerns only the former.
We now flag the distinction where the premise is introduced. Change: §3.2, lines 214–228."
The strong entry names its move, gives the philosophical reason, and cites the line numbers Mind
requires on the manuscript — making verification fast for editor and referees.
Resubmission preflight
Anti-patterns
- Ignoring or quietly merging away an objection without a visible response
- Capitulating to a request that breaks the argument just to placate a referee
- A defensive or dismissive tone toward expert referees
- "We thank the referee" with no actual change and no argued reason
- Adding a concession that silently undercuts the original thesis
- Reintroducing self-identifying material into the resubmission (breaks anonymity)
Output format
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every referee objection answered? [Y/N]
【Each response tagged】rebut / concede-and-limit / bite-the-bullet + change location
【Referee conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Thesis protected】no dilution of the central claim? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + line numbers preserved】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via ScholarOne
Supplementary resources
