first commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
# Action mapping
|
||||
|
||||
Use this file to map every reviewer concern to a concrete response action.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action labels
|
||||
|
||||
| Action label | Meaning | Use when |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `ACCEPT_TEXT` | Revised wording, structure, title, abstract, Methods detail, Discussion, or legend | The author supplied or can supply a text change |
|
||||
| `ACCEPT_ANALYSIS` | Added or revised analysis | The response depends on real analysis output |
|
||||
| `ACCEPT_EXPERIMENT` | Added experimental data | The author performed a real experiment and supplied enough detail |
|
||||
| `ACCEPT_FIGURE` | Added or modified figure, table, panel, legend, or supplement | A visual or tabular item addresses the concern |
|
||||
| `CLARIFY_EXISTING` | Existing data already address the concern, but manuscript presentation needed clarification | The evidence exists and location can be cited |
|
||||
| `ADD_CITATION` | Added verified citation | The citation is genuinely relevant and metadata is supplied or flagged |
|
||||
| `SOFTEN_CLAIM` | Reduced claim strength or added boundary | The original claim was too broad, causal, novel, clinical, or mechanistic |
|
||||
| `PARTIAL` | Partly addressed with explicit remaining limitation | A valid concern cannot be fully resolved in the revision |
|
||||
| `DISAGREE` | Respectfully disagree with evidence or scope-based reasoning | The reviewer interpretation is not supported by the manuscript facts |
|
||||
| `OUT_OF_SCOPE` | Valid suggestion but outside current manuscript scope | The request requires a new cohort, system, longitudinal design, or different study |
|
||||
| `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED` | Cannot draft final answer without real details | The author note is vague, missing, or unsupported |
|
||||
| `BLOCKING` | Revision cannot be credible until author action occurs | Missing ethics, compliance, central evidence, integrity explanation, or required data |
|
||||
|
||||
## Internal tracker fields
|
||||
|
||||
Use this shape internally when organizing a response:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
comment_id: R1.3
|
||||
reviewer: Reviewer 1
|
||||
severity: major
|
||||
category: methodological
|
||||
action: ACCEPT_ANALYSIS
|
||||
author_input_needed: true
|
||||
readiness: draft_with_placeholders
|
||||
risk_level: high
|
||||
manuscript_location: Methods; Results; Supplementary Fig. S2
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Readiness state
|
||||
|
||||
| State | Meaning |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `ready_to_submit` | Enough facts are supplied to draft final text with traceable manuscript location |
|
||||
| `draft_with_placeholders` | Draft can proceed, but placeholders must remain visible |
|
||||
| `needs_author_input` | Do not draft final wording until author supplies facts |
|
||||
| `blocked` | Revision response would be misleading or non-credible without author action |
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk level
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk | Use when |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `low` | Wording, format, or straightforward clarification |
|
||||
| `medium` | Citation, figure, method detail, or presentation issue requiring verification |
|
||||
| `high` | Evidence, statistics, validation, claim strength, or out-of-scope request |
|
||||
| `blocking` | Ethics, compliance, data integrity, missing central evidence, or unsupported response |
|
||||
|
||||
## Mapping rules
|
||||
|
||||
- If the author says only "we revised it", use `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED` until the location and nature of the revision are known.
|
||||
- If the author says "we added an experiment", request experiment name, condition, sample size or replicate unit, result summary, and figure/table location.
|
||||
- If the author says "we added a citation", request verified bibliographic detail unless already supplied.
|
||||
- If a reviewer asks for impossible or out-of-scope work, use `PARTIAL` or `OUT_OF_SCOPE` plus claim softening or limitation.
|
||||
- If a reviewer is factually wrong, usually combine `CLARIFY_EXISTING` with a small text clarification.
|
||||
- If a central claim remains unsupported, use `SOFTEN_CLAIM` or `BLOCKING`, not confident compliance language.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
|
||||
# Chinese author alignment
|
||||
|
||||
Use this file when the user writes in Chinese, provides Chinese author notes, or asks for
|
||||
`中文核对`, `中英对照`, `审稿意见回复`, `逐点回复`, `修回信`, `大修回复`, or `小修回复`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Default behavior
|
||||
|
||||
- Accept Chinese reviewer summaries, author notes, manuscript-change notes, and mixed Chinese-English inputs.
|
||||
- Draft the final point-by-point response letter in English unless the user explicitly asks for Chinese only.
|
||||
- Keep a short `中文核对` section for unresolved author actions when it helps the author act.
|
||||
- Translate intent, not literal wording.
|
||||
- Convert vague Chinese notes into concrete response evidence requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Chinese note conversions
|
||||
|
||||
| Chinese note | Problem | Better handling |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `我们已经改了` | Too vague | Ask what changed, where it appears, and whether revised text is available |
|
||||
| `按审稿人意见修改` | No action mapping | Convert to `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED` until action and location are known |
|
||||
| `我们补了实验` | Missing evidence | Request experiment name, conditions, replicate/sample details, result summary, and figure/table location |
|
||||
| `我们补了分析` | Missing analysis detail | Request analysis method, data source, key result, statistical output, and manuscript location |
|
||||
| `这个问题不重要` | Defensive and unsupported | Reframe as scope, evidence, or claim-boundary reasoning if scientifically justified |
|
||||
| `由于时间原因没做` | High-risk excuse | Replace with study-design or scope boundary only if true; otherwise flag risk |
|
||||
| `审稿人误解了` | Accusatory | Reframe as manuscript clarity issue and add clarification |
|
||||
| `详见正文` | Not traceable | Require section, page, line, figure, table, or supplement |
|
||||
| `我们认为足够了` | Unsupported sufficiency claim | Explain what evidence addresses the concern or mark remaining limitation |
|
||||
|
||||
## Chinese confirmation section
|
||||
|
||||
Use concise Chinese action notes:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
中文核对
|
||||
- R1.1: 请补充验证分析的主要结果、样本量或数据集规模，以及 Fig. 5 对应的正文位置。
|
||||
- R1.2: 请确认统计检验名称、重复单位、样本量和多重检验校正方法。
|
||||
- R2.1: 目前不能声称已完成动物验证；建议改为范围说明 + Discussion limitation。
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Bilingual drafting pattern
|
||||
|
||||
When the user supplies Chinese notes:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Preserve reviewer comments in their supplied language unless asked to translate.
|
||||
2. Build the tracker using English action labels.
|
||||
3. Draft the response letter in polished English.
|
||||
4. Add `中文核对` only for decisions, missing facts, and high-risk issues.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tone correction examples
|
||||
|
||||
Chinese author note:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
审稿人没有理解我们的方法。
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Response stance:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
We agree that the original Methods description did not make this distinction sufficiently clear.
|
||||
We have revised the Methods to clarify [specific distinction and location].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Chinese author note:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
这个实验超出了我们的能力。
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Response stance:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
We agree that this experiment would provide an additional test of [claim]. However, it would require
|
||||
[new cohort/system/longitudinal design], which is outside the scope of the present study. We have
|
||||
therefore softened the claim and added a limitation in [location].
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
|
||||
# Comment taxonomy
|
||||
|
||||
Use this file to classify reviewer comments before drafting responses.
|
||||
|
||||
## Severity
|
||||
|
||||
| Severity | Meaning | Default handling |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `minor` | Presentation, clarity, formatting, citation, or small method-detail issue that does not alter the main evidence chain | Usually draftable with text change or citation placeholder |
|
||||
| `major` | Evidence, validation, method, statistics, interpretation, or scope issue that may affect claims or editorial confidence | Requires explicit action, evidence, or author input |
|
||||
| `blocking` | Ethics, compliance, data integrity, missing required approval, unsupported central claim, or unresolved fatal methodological issue | Do not draft a confident response without author action |
|
||||
| `unclear` | Insufficient information to judge severity | Flag for author confirmation |
|
||||
|
||||
## Categories
|
||||
|
||||
### Editorial / presentation
|
||||
|
||||
Includes unclear writing, structure problems, missing definitions, figure readability, title/abstract mismatch, or confusing terminology.
|
||||
|
||||
Default strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
- Usually `ACCEPT_TEXT` or `ACCEPT_FIGURE`.
|
||||
- Revise wording, structure, legend, definition, or abstract-title alignment.
|
||||
- Give section, page, line, figure, or placeholder.
|
||||
|
||||
### Evidence / interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
Includes unsupported claims, overinterpretation, missing control, causal claim not justified, clinical relevance not shown, or alternative explanation.
|
||||
|
||||
Default strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use `ACCEPT_EXPERIMENT`, `ACCEPT_ANALYSIS`, `SOFTEN_CLAIM`, `CLARIFY_EXISTING`, `PARTIAL`, or `DISAGREE`.
|
||||
- Do not invent results.
|
||||
- If evidence is absent, soften the claim and add a limitation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Methodological
|
||||
|
||||
Includes missing method detail, reproducibility issue, missing baseline, missing validation, unclear sample size, software/model/version not stated.
|
||||
|
||||
Default strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use `ACCEPT_TEXT`, `ACCEPT_ANALYSIS`, or `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.
|
||||
- Request exact method details when author notes are vague.
|
||||
- Map to Methods, Supplementary Methods, protocol, code, or figure/table.
|
||||
|
||||
### Statistical
|
||||
|
||||
Includes inappropriate test, missing effect size, multiple testing issue, insufficient power, missing confidence interval, unclear replicate definition.
|
||||
|
||||
Default strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
- Treat major statistical critiques as high risk until details are supplied.
|
||||
- Ask for test name, replicate unit, sample size, correction method, effect size, confidence interval, and exact results where relevant.
|
||||
- Do not invent p-values, confidence intervals, sample sizes, or effect sizes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Data / code / materials
|
||||
|
||||
Includes missing accession number, source data unavailable, code not provided, restricted data not justified, FAIR metadata incomplete, materials availability.
|
||||
|
||||
Default strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use `ACCEPT_TEXT`, `CLARIFY_EXISTING`, `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`, or `BLOCKING`.
|
||||
- Request repository, accession, DOI, license, access route, or restriction reason.
|
||||
- Coordinate with `nature-data` if the user asks for full data-availability wording.
|
||||
|
||||
### Citation / positioning
|
||||
|
||||
Includes missing prior work, inaccurate novelty claim, wrong comparison, field context incomplete, reviewer-requested citation.
|
||||
|
||||
Default strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use `ADD_CITATION`, `SOFTEN_CLAIM`, `CLARIFY_EXISTING`, or `DISAGREE`.
|
||||
- Add citations only when genuinely relevant and verified.
|
||||
- Do not fabricate DOI, publication year, title, journal, or authors.
|
||||
|
||||
### Scope / feasibility
|
||||
|
||||
Includes requested experiments beyond scope, future-work suggestions, journal-fit concerns, transfer-related concerns.
|
||||
|
||||
Default strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use `PARTIAL`, `OUT_OF_SCOPE`, `SOFTEN_CLAIM`, or `DISAGREE`.
|
||||
- Acknowledge scientific value.
|
||||
- Give a study-design or scope reason, offer alternative evidence, and add a limitation.
|
||||
- Avoid time, funding, or convenience as the primary reason.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ethics / compliance
|
||||
|
||||
Includes ethics approval missing, consent missing, animal/human-subject reporting, competing interests, image/data integrity, or permissions.
|
||||
|
||||
Default strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
- Usually `BLOCKING` or `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.
|
||||
- Request exact approval number, institution, consent statement, reporting checklist, image-processing details, or data-integrity explanation.
|
||||
- Do not draft around missing required compliance.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
|
||||
# Difficult cases
|
||||
|
||||
Use this file when comments cannot be handled with straightforward acceptance and revision.
|
||||
|
||||
## Impossible or out-of-scope experiment
|
||||
|
||||
Use when the requested work requires a new cohort, long follow-up, new animal model, new clinical
|
||||
trial, new platform, or different study design.
|
||||
|
||||
Strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Acknowledge scientific value.
|
||||
2. Explain the study-design or scope boundary.
|
||||
3. Offer alternative evidence if supplied.
|
||||
4. Soften the claim or add a limitation.
|
||||
5. Avoid time, budget, convenience, or ability excuses.
|
||||
|
||||
Template:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
We agree that [experiment] would provide an additional test of [claim]. However, the central
|
||||
conclusion of the present study is based on [existing evidence], and the requested experiment
|
||||
would require [new system/cohort/longitudinal design] beyond the scope of this revision.
|
||||
To avoid overstatement, we have revised [location] to acknowledge this limitation and now state
|
||||
that [revised text or placeholder].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Reviewer factual error
|
||||
|
||||
Use when the reviewer appears to have missed existing data or made a factually incorrect statement.
|
||||
|
||||
Strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Do not accuse the reviewer.
|
||||
2. Cite the existing manuscript location or supplied evidence.
|
||||
3. Clarify wording if the manuscript invited confusion.
|
||||
4. Consider a small revision even when the reviewer is wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
Template:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
We appreciate the reviewer raising this point. The relevant data are provided in [location],
|
||||
where we show [supplied evidence]. We have revised [location] to make this clearer.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Conflicting reviewer requests
|
||||
|
||||
Use when two reviewers ask for incompatible changes.
|
||||
|
||||
Strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Surface the conflict internally in the strategy summary.
|
||||
2. Prioritize explicit editor instructions if supplied.
|
||||
3. Find the minimal revision that satisfies both concerns.
|
||||
4. Avoid making incompatible promises.
|
||||
5. If necessary, explain the balancing choice in the relevant responses.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reviewer-requested citation
|
||||
|
||||
Use when a reviewer asks for a specific citation or broader literature coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
Strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Evaluate relevance.
|
||||
2. Add only genuinely relevant and verified citations.
|
||||
3. Do not imply coercion or reviewer self-citation.
|
||||
4. Use neutral positioning language.
|
||||
5. If citation metadata is missing, use `AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Major statistical critique
|
||||
|
||||
Treat as high risk or blocking until details are supplied.
|
||||
|
||||
Request:
|
||||
|
||||
- statistical test name
|
||||
- replicate unit
|
||||
- sample size or replicate count
|
||||
- effect size or estimate when relevant
|
||||
- confidence interval when relevant
|
||||
- p-value only when supplied and appropriate
|
||||
- multiple-testing correction
|
||||
- software and version if relevant
|
||||
- Methods and Results locations
|
||||
|
||||
Do not invent statistical output.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ethics, compliance, or data-integrity critique
|
||||
|
||||
Usually `BLOCKING` until author provides exact facts.
|
||||
|
||||
Request:
|
||||
|
||||
- ethics approval body and approval number
|
||||
- consent statement
|
||||
- animal or human-subject reporting details
|
||||
- competing-interest correction
|
||||
- image-processing or data-integrity explanation
|
||||
- data, code, materials, or accession information
|
||||
|
||||
Do not write around missing required compliance.
|
||||
|
||||
## Transfer after review
|
||||
|
||||
Use when a manuscript is transferred with reviewer reports.
|
||||
|
||||
Strategy:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Identify whether the receiving journal expects a response to transferred reports.
|
||||
2. Preserve reviewer IDs from the transferred review package when possible.
|
||||
3. Address comments as normal revision concerns unless the new editor gives different instructions.
|
||||
4. Flag journal-specific formatting or scope differences.
|
||||
|
||||
## Appeal-like case
|
||||
|
||||
Appeals are not ordinary revision responses.
|
||||
|
||||
Route separately when:
|
||||
|
||||
- the user wants to challenge rejection rather than revise;
|
||||
- the decision letter invites an appeal path;
|
||||
- the author alleges major factual error, bias, or process failure;
|
||||
- no revised manuscript is being prepared.
|
||||
|
||||
Default action:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
This appears to be an appeal-like case rather than a revision response. `nature-response`
|
||||
can identify the disputed points, but a full appeal letter should be handled as a separate task
|
||||
with journal-specific appeal rules.
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
|
||||
# Intake and routing
|
||||
|
||||
Use this file before splitting comments or drafting prose. Its job is to decide what task the
|
||||
user is asking for, whether the supplied information is enough, and what output state is honest.
|
||||
|
||||
## Task modes
|
||||
|
||||
| Mode | Use when | Minimum useful input | Default output |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `draft` | User wants a new point-by-point response package | Reviewer comments plus any author actions or manuscript-change notes | Full response package with placeholders where needed |
|
||||
| `audit` | User provides an existing response draft and asks whether it is good enough | Response draft; reviewer comments when available | Findings first, then revised or annotated response sections |
|
||||
| `revise` | User wants a draft rewritten for tone, traceability, or Nature-style response | Existing draft plus target change request | Revised response text plus changed-risk notes |
|
||||
| `triage-only` | User wants strategy, action list, or missing inputs before writing prose | Reviewer comments or editor letter | Tracker, action map, missing-input list, no final letter |
|
||||
| `appeal-like` | User wants to challenge rejection or process rather than revise | Decision letter and disputed points | Route out of default workflow and explain separate appeal handling |
|
||||
|
||||
If the mode is unclear, infer the safest useful mode. Prefer `triage-only` when drafting would
|
||||
require many unsupported facts.
|
||||
|
||||
## Readiness states
|
||||
|
||||
Use one readiness state for each comment and one package-level state:
|
||||
|
||||
| State | Meaning | Allowed output |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `ready_to_submit` | Direct answer, supplied action, and traceable manuscript location are all present | Final response wording without unresolved placeholders |
|
||||
| `draft_with_placeholders` | A useful draft can be written, but visible placeholders remain | Draft wording with bracketed placeholders and risk flags |
|
||||
| `needs_author_input` | Final text would require facts the user has not supplied | Tracker, questions, partial draft only if placeholders are explicit |
|
||||
| `blocked` | Ethics, compliance, data integrity, missing central evidence, or appeal-like routing prevents credible revision response | Blocking issue first; do not produce confident final wording |
|
||||
|
||||
Do not call a package `ready_to_submit` if any comment remains `draft_with_placeholders`,
|
||||
`needs_author_input`, or `blocked`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Editor instruction handling
|
||||
|
||||
When editor instructions are supplied:
|
||||
|
||||
- Assign editor-level IDs before reviewer IDs: `E.1`, `E.2`, `E.3`.
|
||||
- Address editor instructions before Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, etc.
|
||||
- If editor instructions conflict with reviewer suggestions, surface the conflict in the strategy summary.
|
||||
- Treat explicit editor constraints as higher priority than reviewer-level preference.
|
||||
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
E.1: Focus on clarifying the central claim without substantial manuscript expansion.
|
||||
R1.1: Make the causal claim stronger.
|
||||
R2.1: Soften unsupported causal language.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The response strategy should explain that the editor's constraint and the observational design
|
||||
support claim softening rather than stronger causal language.
|
||||
|
||||
## Minimum information by output type
|
||||
|
||||
### Full draft response
|
||||
|
||||
Requires:
|
||||
|
||||
- reviewer comments or editor comments;
|
||||
- enough author notes to know which actions were taken;
|
||||
- manuscript locations or placeholders for claimed changes.
|
||||
|
||||
If locations are missing, use section names or bracketed placeholders. Do not invent line numbers.
|
||||
|
||||
### Final submission-ready response
|
||||
|
||||
Requires:
|
||||
|
||||
- all reviewer and editor comments identified;
|
||||
- all claimed actions supplied by the author;
|
||||
- traceable locations for every manuscript change;
|
||||
- real details for experiments, analyses, statistics, citations, figures, tables, supplements, ethics, and data availability.
|
||||
|
||||
If any required fact is missing, the output is not `ready_to_submit`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Audit
|
||||
|
||||
Requires:
|
||||
|
||||
- user draft;
|
||||
- reviewer comments when available.
|
||||
|
||||
If reviewer comments are absent, audit only the visible draft and flag that completeness cannot be verified.
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarifying question rules
|
||||
|
||||
Usually proceed with placeholders and risk flags. Ask concise questions only when:
|
||||
|
||||
- the user explicitly asks for final submission-ready text and required facts are missing;
|
||||
- the draft would otherwise fabricate data, locations, approvals, statistics, citations, or figure panels;
|
||||
- reviewer boundaries are too ambiguous to assign stable IDs;
|
||||
- the case appears appeal-like or outside normal revision response.
|
||||
|
||||
When asking, keep questions specific:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
I need three facts before final wording: the validation result summary, the Methods/Results location,
|
||||
and whether Fig. 5 is a main or supplementary figure.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Routing shortcuts
|
||||
|
||||
- Vague author note such as "we fixed it" -> `needs_author_input`.
|
||||
- Existing response with hostile language -> `audit` or `revise`.
|
||||
- Reviewer asks for impossible new work -> normal revision mode with `PARTIAL` or `OUT_OF_SCOPE`, not appeal.
|
||||
- Rejection challenge -> `appeal-like`.
|
||||
- User asks only "what should we do?" -> `triage-only`.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
||||
# QA checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Use this checklist before finalizing a response package or when auditing an existing draft.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
- Every reviewer comment has a stable ID.
|
||||
- Every ID has a response or an explicit unresolved flag.
|
||||
- No reviewer comment is paraphrased in a way that changes meaning.
|
||||
- Repeated concerns are cross-referenced rather than ignored.
|
||||
- No major concern is answered only with thanks.
|
||||
- Editor-specific instructions are addressed before reviewer comments when supplied.
|
||||
|
||||
## Traceability
|
||||
|
||||
- Every claimed revision has a manuscript location or visible placeholder.
|
||||
- Every new figure, table, panel, supplement, or citation is named only if supplied.
|
||||
- Every new experiment or analysis has enough supplied description to be credible.
|
||||
- Line numbers are not invented; use section names if line numbers are unavailable.
|
||||
- Reviewer comments and response IDs match throughout tracker, letter, and checklist.
|
||||
|
||||
## Factuality
|
||||
|
||||
- No invented data.
|
||||
- No invented p-values, confidence intervals, effect sizes, sample sizes, or replicate counts.
|
||||
- No invented DOI, citation metadata, accession number, repository record, or figure panel.
|
||||
- No invented reviewer identity or editor instruction.
|
||||
- No unsupported claim that an experiment, analysis, or manuscript revision was performed.
|
||||
- Unsupported claims are softened or flagged.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tone
|
||||
|
||||
- No accusations of reviewer incompetence, bias, or misunderstanding unless the user is explicitly preparing an appeal and supplies evidence.
|
||||
- No excessive apologies.
|
||||
- No repetitive empty thanks.
|
||||
- Disagreement is evidence-based and narrow.
|
||||
- Study limitations are acknowledged cleanly.
|
||||
- Time, money, convenience, or ability is not the primary stated reason for not doing requested work.
|
||||
|
||||
## Actionability
|
||||
|
||||
- Missing author inputs are concrete.
|
||||
- High-risk and blocking items appear before the final letter or in a visible risk section.
|
||||
- The manuscript change checklist tells the author which section, figure, table, supplement, or claim needs attention.
|
||||
- Partial responses state what was addressed and what remains unresolved.
|
||||
|
||||
## Final output gate
|
||||
|
||||
Before returning final text, ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- Can an editor verify every response against a manuscript change, supplied evidence, or explicit limitation?
|
||||
- Would the response remain professional if included in a transparent peer review file?
|
||||
- Are all placeholders visible enough that the author cannot accidentally submit fabricated compliance?
|
||||
- Is the package readiness honestly labelled as `ready_to_submit`, `draft_with_placeholders`, `needs_author_input`, or `blocked`?
|
||||
- If any item is `draft_with_placeholders`, `needs_author_input`, or `blocked`, the package must not be labelled `ready_to_submit`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Readiness gate
|
||||
|
||||
Use these labels consistently:
|
||||
|
||||
- `ready_to_submit`: all comments are answered with supplied actions and traceable locations.
|
||||
- `draft_with_placeholders`: draft text exists, but visible placeholders or missing locations remain.
|
||||
- `needs_author_input`: the author must provide facts before final response wording is credible.
|
||||
- `blocked`: a compliance, integrity, central-evidence, or appeal-like issue prevents normal final response drafting.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
|
||||
# Response structure
|
||||
|
||||
Use this file when drafting or auditing the output shape of a reviewer response package.
|
||||
|
||||
## Default package
|
||||
|
||||
Return the response in this order unless the user asks for another format:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Response strategy summary.
|
||||
2. Comment-response tracker.
|
||||
3. Draft point-by-point response letter.
|
||||
4. Manuscript change checklist.
|
||||
5. Missing information / risk flags.
|
||||
6. Chinese confirmation notes when the user writes in Chinese.
|
||||
|
||||
## Response strategy summary
|
||||
|
||||
Keep this short and editor-readable:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Response strategy summary
|
||||
- Decision type: Major revision
|
||||
- Task mode: draft
|
||||
- Package readiness: draft_with_placeholders
|
||||
- Overall posture: Cooperative, evidence-forward, non-defensive
|
||||
- Major risks: missing validation results; unclear replicate definition
|
||||
- Suggested ordering: address editor first, then Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 in full
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Decision types:
|
||||
|
||||
- `minor revision`
|
||||
- `major revision`
|
||||
- `revise-and-resubmit`
|
||||
- `transfer after review`
|
||||
- `appeal-like case` routed outside the default workflow
|
||||
- `unclear` when the decision type is not supplied
|
||||
|
||||
Task modes:
|
||||
|
||||
- `draft`
|
||||
- `audit`
|
||||
- `revise`
|
||||
- `triage-only`
|
||||
- `appeal-like`
|
||||
|
||||
Package readiness:
|
||||
|
||||
- `ready_to_submit`: no unresolved placeholders or missing facts remain.
|
||||
- `draft_with_placeholders`: usable draft, but visible placeholders remain.
|
||||
- `needs_author_input`: final text depends on facts the author has not supplied.
|
||||
- `blocked`: credible revision response is blocked by ethics, compliance, data integrity, central evidence, or appeal-like routing.
|
||||
|
||||
## Comment-response tracker
|
||||
|
||||
Use a compact table:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
| ID | Reviewer concern | Type | Severity | Proposed action | Readiness | Missing author input |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| R1.1 | Missing validation cohort | Evidence / validation | Major | ACCEPT_ANALYSIS | needs_author_input | Need result summary and manuscript location |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Keep reviewer concern text short in the tracker. Preserve the full wording in the letter when available.
|
||||
Use `E.1`, `E.2`, etc. for editor instructions and list them before reviewer comments.
|
||||
|
||||
## Point-by-point letter anatomy
|
||||
|
||||
Use this default structure:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
|
||||
|
||||
We thank the editor and reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript.
|
||||
We have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised and provide a point-by-point response below.
|
||||
|
||||
## Response to Reviewer 1
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer comment R1.1**
|
||||
[Full reviewer comment preserved here.]
|
||||
|
||||
**Response**
|
||||
We thank the reviewer for raising this point. [Direct answer.]
|
||||
To address this concern, we have [specific action]. This change appears in [section/page/line/figure].
|
||||
[If needed: The remaining limitation is now stated in [location].]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Manuscript change checklist
|
||||
|
||||
List manuscript actions, not polite intentions:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Manuscript change checklist
|
||||
- R1.1: Add validation result summary to Results and cite Fig. 5.
|
||||
- R1.2: Clarify replicate definition in Methods.
|
||||
- R2.1: Soften causal claim in Abstract and Discussion.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Missing information / risk flags
|
||||
|
||||
Use specific requests:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Missing information / risk flags
|
||||
- R1.1: Need validation result direction and effect/performance summary before final wording.
|
||||
- R1.2: Need test name, replicate unit, sample size, and correction method.
|
||||
- R2.1: No line numbers supplied; using section names for now.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Cover letter boundary
|
||||
|
||||
Some journals ask for a revised manuscript, response to reviewers, and cover letter. This MVP does
|
||||
not generate cover letters. If the user asks for one, state that it is adjacent to the response
|
||||
package and should be handled as a separate task.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
|
||||
# Tone and stance
|
||||
|
||||
Use this file when drafting response prose, rewriting defensive author notes, or deciding how to disagree.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core posture
|
||||
|
||||
- Cooperative but not submissive.
|
||||
- Evidence-forward rather than personality-forward.
|
||||
- Concise enough for editors to audit quickly.
|
||||
- Respectful to reviewers without hiding scientific limits.
|
||||
- Transparent about missing information and unresolved risks.
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended sentence patterns
|
||||
|
||||
Use these patterns only when the facts support them:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion.
|
||||
We agree that the original wording did not make this point sufficiently clear.
|
||||
We have revised the manuscript to clarify...
|
||||
To address this concern, we performed...
|
||||
The new analysis shows...
|
||||
We have therefore softened the claim from ... to ...
|
||||
We respectfully disagree with this interpretation because...
|
||||
Although we agree that this experiment would be valuable, it is outside the scope of the present study because...
|
||||
We now explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the Discussion.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Weak or forbidden patterns
|
||||
|
||||
Do not present these as acceptable final responses:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
The reviewer misunderstood...
|
||||
The reviewer is wrong...
|
||||
Due to lack of funding, we cannot...
|
||||
This is beyond our ability...
|
||||
As everyone knows...
|
||||
We believe this is sufficient.
|
||||
We have revised accordingly.
|
||||
Thank you for the comment.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
It is acceptable to thank reviewers, but thanks cannot be the response. Each reply still needs a
|
||||
direct answer, action, location, or unresolved flag.
|
||||
|
||||
## Disagreement pattern
|
||||
|
||||
Use this order:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Acknowledge the concern.
|
||||
2. State the point of disagreement narrowly.
|
||||
3. Give manuscript evidence, external evidence, or scope logic.
|
||||
4. Make a small clarification if the manuscript may have invited confusion.
|
||||
5. Avoid personalizing the disagreement.
|
||||
|
||||
Template:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
We appreciate the reviewer raising this issue. We respectfully disagree that [narrow point],
|
||||
because [evidence or scope reason]. To make this clearer, we have revised [location] to state
|
||||
that [revised text or placeholder].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Reviewer misunderstanding pattern
|
||||
|
||||
Do not write that the reviewer misunderstood. Treat the misunderstanding as a presentation signal:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
We agree that the original text did not make this distinction sufficiently clear. We have revised
|
||||
the [section] to clarify that [specific distinction].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Out-of-scope pattern
|
||||
|
||||
When declining a requested experiment or analysis:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
We agree that [requested work] would provide an additional test of [claim]. However, the central
|
||||
conclusion of the present study is based on [existing evidence], and [requested work] would require
|
||||
[new cohort/system/longitudinal design] beyond the scope of this revision. To avoid overstatement,
|
||||
we have revised [location] to acknowledge this limitation and now state that [text or placeholder].
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use study design, available evidence, and claim boundaries. Do not lead with time, money, or convenience.
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim-strength verbs
|
||||
|
||||
Prefer calibrated verbs:
|
||||
|
||||
- Strong evidence: `demonstrate`, `show`, `establish`
|
||||
- Moderate evidence: `indicate`, `suggest`, `support`
|
||||
- Limited or associative evidence: `are consistent with`, `may reflect`, `raise the possibility`
|
||||
|
||||
If the reviewer challenges causality and the evidence is associative, soften causal verbs before drafting the response.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user