96 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
96 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|