---
name: reviewer-response
description: Convert editorial and reviewer comments into an evidence-based revision plan and point-by-point response linked to actual manuscript changes and verified analyses.
---

# Reviewer response

Use this Academic Research Assistant skill for editorial revisions, peer-review responses, and reasoned rebuttals. Apply the [research contract](../../docs/RESEARCH-CONTRACT.md). The response must describe what actually changed or what evidence supports a reasoned disagreement. A confident tone cannot substitute for a completed analysis or a located manuscript edit.

## Inputs and decision context

Obtain the full decision letter, comments, submitted version, current manuscript and supplements, response requirements, and deadline. Distinguish mandatory editorial instructions from reviewer suggestions and distinguish criticism of presentation from criticism of the underlying inference. Preserve the original comments and assign stable identifiers so none disappear during revision.

Identify changes already authorized by the user's revision request. Perform relevant local analysis and drafting when feasible; external experiments, participant recruitment, expenditures, or correspondence may require decisions beyond a writing task. When a requested action cannot be completed, explain the limit and prepare the best supported response instead of claiming it was done.

## Build and execute the revision

1. Create a response matrix containing comment identifier, substantive issue, proposed action, evidence needed, affected files, status, and response locator. Split multi-part comments into trackable components without altering their meaning.
2. Evaluate the criticism on its merits. Check the cited passage, methods, data, and relevant literature. Do not automatically accept a reviewer claim, but do not dismiss a valid concern because the original manuscript intended something different.
3. Group shared scientific issues to resolve them consistently while still answering each comment. Prioritize concerns that affect the central claim, design, analysis, or interpretation before polishing wording.
4. Implement the revision. Keep a change log connecting edits, analyses, figures, references, and conclusions. For a new analysis, record its rationale, method, results, diagnostics, and limitations. Identify it as post-review or exploratory where relevant rather than implying it was prespecified.
5. Draft each response with a direct answer, the action or reasoned disagreement, supporting evidence, and the exact location of the change. Quote short revised passages when they make the correction reviewable. Avoid broad claims such as “all concerns addressed” before checking each item.
6. If disagreeing, state the scientific reason, applicable evidence, and any clarification added to prevent misunderstanding. If an analysis cannot identify the requested effect or would violate the design, explain that limitation precisely. Do not invent a supportive citation or perform an invalid calculation merely to satisfy the wording of a request.
7. Reconcile cascading effects. A changed outcome definition, model, theorem condition, or figure can require edits in the abstract, methods, results, discussion, supplement, and response. Ensure every location tells the same scientific story.

## Mode-specific evidence

For quantitative revisions, distinguish reanalysis, sensitivity analysis, added data, and corrected error; report how the change affects estimates and interpretation. For qualitative revisions, consider whether requests for counting, coding agreement, or generalization fit the actual methodological stance. Offer an appropriate clarification rather than promising a procedure inconsistent with the study.

For theoretical revisions, track changes in assumptions, propositions, derivations, and proof scope. If a counterexample defeats a claim, revise the claim rather than only the prose. For computational revisions, document software and dataset versions, evaluation conditions, resource constraints, and whether results were rerun. A planned benchmark belongs in an open item until executed and checked.

## Deliverable and verification

Deliver a clean manuscript, a marked version when requested, a point-by-point response, a response matrix, and an unresolved-actions list. Use the [response-matrix reference](references/response-matrix.md) to track substantive closure. Use [academic editing](../academic-editing/SKILL.md) for prose and [research appraisal](../research-appraisal/SKILL.md) for consequential scientific disputes.

Verify that each comment has an answer, each claimed edit exists, source locations are current, and numerical or bibliographic additions are checked. Update page and line numbers after the final build. Keep responses respectful without excessive deference or unsupported concessions. Preparing the package does not authorize sending it; state whether the result is a revision draft or a verified local resubmission package.