메뉴
Respond to peer review comments and manage manuscript revisions. Use when drafting response letters, tracking changes across versions, or addressing reviewer concerns. Works well with scientific-style and human-writing skills.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Audit, fix, and format bibliographies for academic manuscripts. Cross-references inline citations against the reference list to find orphans in both directions. Complements scientific-style (citation prose quality) and submission-prep (formatting checklists).
Generate and review scientific figures using AI. Creates publication-quality figures aligned with manuscript content using Gemini for generation and Claude vision for review. Works well with submission-prep and manuscript-writing skills.
Structure academic research papers using IMRaD format. Use when writing research manuscripts, organizing paper sections, drafting abstracts, or constructing titles. Works well with human-writing and scientific-style skills.
Calibrate scientific claims and integrate citations properly. Use when adjusting claim strength, adding hedging language, integrating literature, or matching evidence to conclusions. Complements human-writing by addressing when hedging IS appropriate.
Prepare manuscripts for journal submission. Use when writing cover letters, checking submission requirements, or preparing figures and tables. Works well with human-writing and manuscript-writing skills.
| name | revision-workflow |
| description | Respond to peer review comments and manage manuscript revisions. Use when drafting response letters, tracking changes across versions, or addressing reviewer concerns. Works well with scientific-style and human-writing skills. |
| argument-hint | ["reviewer comment or revision task"] |
This guide covers responding to peer review and managing the revision process.
Combine with: scientific-style for appropriate hedging, human-writing for clear prose.
Response to Reviewers
Manuscript ID: [ID]
Title: [Title]
Authors: [Authors]
We thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback.
We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript
accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are below.
Page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript with track changes.
REVIEWER 1
Comment 1.1: [Quote or paraphrase the comment]
Response: [Your response]
Changes made: [Specific changes with page/line numbers, or "No changes made"]
---
Comment 1.2: [Next comment]
...
We believe these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript
and hope it is now suitable for publication in [Journal].
Sincerely,
[Corresponding author]
| Comment Type | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Minor correction | Thank, agree, fix, cite location |
| Clarification request | Thank, explain, add text if needed |
| Additional analysis | Agree if feasible, explain if not, provide results |
| Methodological concern | Address directly, explain rationale, add detail |
| Interpretation disagreement | Acknowledge perspective, explain reasoning, modify if warranted |
| Literature gap | Thank, add citations, discuss relevance |
| Impossible request | Explain why, offer alternative |
| Instead of | Use |
|---|---|
| "The reviewer is wrong" | "We respectfully disagree because..." |
| "We already said this" | "We have clarified this point by..." |
| "This is beyond scope" | "While this is an important question, it is beyond the scope of the current study because..." |
| "We can't do this" | "Unfortunately, [reason]. As an alternative, we have..." |
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have [made change] as
recommended. See page X, lines Y-Z.
We appreciate this comment. While we agree that [aspect], we believe
[other aspect] because [reasoning]. We have addressed this by [action].
We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We respectfully disagree
because [clear reasoning with evidence]. However, we have [action to
address underlying concern] to clarify our position.
We appreciate this suggestion. Unfortunately, [specific reason why not
feasible: data not available, beyond scope, etc.]. As an alternative,
we have [what you did instead]. We have also added this as a limitation
in the Discussion (page X, lines Y-Z).
See CHANGE_TRACKING.md for detailed guidance on:
See COMMON_REVIEWER_CONCERNS.md for pre-written strategies for:
See RESPONSE_TEMPLATES.md for fill-in templates.