---
name: phg-rebuttal
description: Use when responding to a Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the editor and referees that strengthens the review's argument and coverage. Structures the response and revisions; it does not fabricate literature or claims.
---

# Revision & Rebuttal (phg-rebuttal)

A major revision at PiHG is a **scoped invitation**, not a rejection. The response letter is read alongside
the revised essay by the **editor** and the **referees** — usually senior figures in your sub-field. You
win by addressing every point, respectfully and concretely, and by **strengthening the intervention and
the command of the literature**, not by patching wording. Because PiHG is a review journal, most fixes are
**argumentative and bibliographic**, not new data.

## When to trigger

- A decision letter arrived: minor revision, major revision (R&R), or reject-with-encouragement
- Referees disagree, or one challenges the coverage, the attribution, or the novelty of the intervention
- You need to decide what to concede, what to push back on, and how to show the changes

## Build the response

1. **Open with a synthesis.** A short note to the editor summarizing the main changes and how the revision
   strengthens the **argument, the intervention, and the coverage**.
2. **Point-by-point, quote each comment.** Reproduce each referee/editor comment verbatim, then respond
   directly beneath it. Number them (R1.1, R1.2 …) for cross-reference.
3. **Show, don't assert.** For each accepted point, quote the **revised text** and give the location
   (section/paragraph); for added literature, name the works and where they now appear.
4. **Disagree carefully.** Where you decline, give a reasoned rationale and, where possible, a partial
   accommodation — never dismiss a referee who is *in* the field.

## PiHG-specific moves

- **"Missed literature" is first-order.** If a referee names works you omitted, add and *integrate* them
  into the synthesis (not a token citation), and check none change the argument. Correct any attribution
  error immediately — a misplaced concept or journal loses a reviewer fast.
- **Strengthen the intervention, not just coverage.** If a referee called the essay "a summary" or
  "toothless," the fix is a sharper critical move (`phg-critical-intervention`) and a clearer organizing
  concept (`phg-theory-building`) — more citations alone will not answer it.
- **Reconcile divergent referees on their own terms.** A political-economy referee and a post-structural
  referee may pull in opposite directions; name the tension for the editor and show how the revision serves
  both, rather than silently satisfying one.
- **Widen reach where flagged.** If coverage was called parochial, engage Global-South / non-Anglophone
  work where it exists, and name the honest limit where it does not.
- **Honor the short cap on the way back.** Revisions add words; re-check the **~8,000-word inclusive cap**
  and cut walk-throughs or move detail to endnotes sparingly (they count too).

## Response micro-template (illustrative)

```
R2.2 (verbatim): "This reads as a competent survey but I finished it unsure what the field is supposed to
  do differently."
Response: We agree the intervention was under-stated. We have (a) recast Section 4 around a single
  claim — that treating the platform as a bounded object hides the relational circuit — and (b) added a
  forward agenda (Section 5) with three concept-driven questions for economic, feminist, and urban
  geographers. Revised text: "Following the circuit rather than the platform, research should now ask…"
  (§5, ¶1). We also integrated the three works the reviewer noted (added at §3.2) into the synthesis.
```

This concedes the point, shows the structural fix and its location, and integrates the missed works — the
move editors reward over "we have strengthened the argument."

## Decision triage (how hard to fight)

| Referee ask | Posture |
|-------------|---------|
| Missed / misattributed literature | Concede and integrate; it is first-order at this venue |
| "Add an empirical study / data" | Push back on genre — PiHG publishes reviews, not empirical work |
| "The intervention is thin" | Concede; sharpen the critical move and concept, not just citations |
| Divergent-tradition referees clash | Reconcile; name the tension for the editor |
| Out-of-scope demand (a different essay) | Decline with rationale; offer a scoped accommodation |

## Checklist

- [ ] Every comment quoted and answered (numbered, point-by-point)
- [ ] Revised text quoted with locations; added literature named and integrated
- [ ] Attribution errors corrected; missed works woven into the synthesis, not tokenized
- [ ] Intervention and organizing concept strengthened where "summary/toothless" was the charge
- [ ] Divergent referees each addressed on their own terms; tensions named for the editor
- [ ] Re-checked against the ~8,000-word inclusive cap and SAGE Harvard style

## Anti-patterns

- "We have addressed this" with no shown change
- Answering "missed literature" with a token citation, not integration
- Answering "thin intervention" with more coverage instead of a sharper argument
- Being talked into adding empirical data to a review essay
- Dismissing or arguing combatively with a referee who is in the field
- Blowing past the short cap while adding requested material

## Output format

```
【Decision】minor / major (R&R) / reject-with-encouragement
【Editor synthesis】2–3 lines on the main changes
【Point-by-point】each comment quoted + response + revised-text location
【Coverage fixes】missed works integrated + attributions corrected
【Intervention strengthened】sharper critical move / clearer concept
【Cap re-check】within ~8,000 inclusive after revisions? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via SAGE Track (phg-submission for final preflight)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — review model, decision categories, and genres
- [`../../resources/README.md`](../../resources/README.md) — how the resources support argument and coverage fixes