# Source basis

Use this file to keep `nature-response` grounded in primary or near-primary publication
process sources. Source labels distinguish formal policy from journal instructions and editorial
advice.

## Source hierarchy

1. Target journal instructions and the specific editor decision letter.
2. Nature / Nature Portfolio / Springer Nature peer-review and editorial-process pages.
3. Springer Nature editorial advice on rebuttal letters.
4. Local manuscript facts supplied by the author.

If a current journal page conflicts with this file, follow the current journal page.

## Sources and rules

| Source | URL | Source type | Local rule summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature editorial criteria and processes | https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes | Formal journal process | Revised papers that need technical work should be accompanied by a point-by-point response to referee comments. Resubmitted manuscripts must seriously address referee criticisms unless the editor says otherwise. |
| Nature transparent peer review information | https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes | Formal journal process | For some published original research articles, reviewer comments and author rebuttal material may be available as transparent peer review files. Write response letters as potentially auditable public documents without assuming every rebuttal is published. |
| Nature Electronics editorial process | https://www.nature.com/natelectron/submission-guidelines/editorial-process | Journal instruction | A revision package commonly includes the revised manuscript, a response to each reviewer, and a cover letter. `nature-response` handles the reviewer response; cover-letter generation is out of MVP scope. |
| Springer Nature rebuttal guidance | https://communities.springernature.com/posts/how-to-write-a-rebuttal-letter | Editorial advice | Preserve reviewer comments, respond immediately after each concern, number or clearly separate replies, state where changes appear, and avoid venting, accusations, ignored requests, or distorted paraphrases. |
| Scientific Reviews peer-review policies | https://www.nature.com/scirev/journal-policies/peer-review | Journal policy | Revisions should include point-by-point responses explaining manuscript changes. Appeals and revision responses follow different logic, so appeal-like cases should be routed separately instead of treated as ordinary point-by-point revision responses. |

## Implementation implications

- Point-by-point response is the default structure for revision cases.
- Every referee criticism must be answered, justified, cross-referenced, or flagged as unresolved.
- A cover letter can be mentioned as adjacent revision-package material, but this skill does not draft it by default.
- The skill should copy or preserve reviewer wording supplied by the user unless the user asks for anonymization or summarization.
- Tone, accuracy, and traceability should meet the standard of material that may later be reviewed by editors, reviewers, or public readers.
- Do not overstate source authority: Springer Nature advice is useful writing guidance, not journal-specific binding policy.
