first commit

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/references/tone-and-stance.md

@@ -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.