backup materials and knowledge-base docs

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-response/examples/conflicting-reviewers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Example: conflicting reviewers
+
+This synthetic example shows how editor instructions and evidence limits control the response when
+reviewers request incompatible claim strength.
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Editor:
+Please avoid expanding the manuscript substantially and focus on clarifying the central claim.
+
+Reviewer 1:
+1. The abstract should make a stronger causal claim that X drives Y.
+
+Reviewer 2:
+1. The causal language is not supported by the observational design and should be softened.
+
+Author notes:
+- The study is observational.
+- We can soften the abstract and discussion.
+- We can state that the findings support an association, not causality.
+```
+
+## Expected handling
+
+- Assign the editor instruction `E.1`.
+- Assign reviewer comments `R1.1` and `R2.1`.
+- Surface the conflict in the strategy summary.
+- Prioritize the editor instruction and the observational design.
+- Use `SOFTEN_CLAIM` for `R2.1`.
+- Use `PARTIAL` or `DISAGREE` for `R1.1`, with respectful reasoning.
+
+## Response style
+
+```text
+We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to sharpen the abstract. However, because the study is
+observational, we agree with the editor's instruction to clarify the central claim without
+overstating causality. We have therefore revised the abstract and Discussion to state that the
+findings support an association between X and Y, rather than a causal relationship.
+```
+
+The response must not promise both stronger causal language and softened causal language.

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-response/examples/major-revision-with-missing-evidence.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Example: major revision with missing evidence
+
+This synthetic example shows how to avoid fabricated compliance when an author note is incomplete.
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Editor decision: Major revision.
+
+Reviewer 1:
+1. The manuscript requires validation in an independent cohort.
+2. The replicate definition in the statistical analysis is unclear.
+
+Author notes:
+- We added validation using dataset GSEXXXX in Fig. 5.
+- We fixed the statistics description.
+```
+
+## Expected handling
+
+```text
+Response strategy summary
+- Decision type: Major revision
+- Task mode: draft
+- Package readiness: needs_author_input
+- Major risks: validation results and statistical details are missing
+```
+
+The response may mention `GSEXXXX` and `Fig. 5` because they were supplied. It must not invent:
+
+- validation performance;
+- sample size;
+- p-values;
+- confidence intervals;
+- statistical test names;
+- Methods or Results line numbers.
+
+## Required author questions
+
+```text
+Missing information / risk flags
+- R1.1: Please provide the validation result summary, cohort size or dataset scale, and Results/Fig. 5 location.
+- R1.2: Please provide the statistical test name, replicate unit, sample size, correction method, and Methods location.
+```
+
+## Response style
+
+```text
+To address this concern, we added an independent validation analysis using dataset GSEXXXX,
+which is presented in Fig. 5. The final response requires the validation result summary and
+manuscript location before it can be marked ready_to_submit.
+```

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar-upstream/skills/nature-response/examples/minor-revision.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Example: minor revision response package
+
+This synthetic example shows the expected output shape for a minor revision. It is not based on
+real reviewer comments.
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Editor decision: Minor revision.
+
+Reviewer 1:
+1. Please define cross-domain calibration in the Introduction.
+2. Figure 2 legend does not explain the colour scale.
+
+Author notes:
+- Cross-domain calibration means adjusting the model output across datasets with different feature distributions.
+- We added a definition in the Introduction.
+- We revised the Figure 2 legend to define the colour scale.
+- No line numbers are available.
+```
+
+## Expected response strategy summary
+
+```text
+Response strategy summary
+- Decision type: Minor revision
+- Task mode: draft
+- Package readiness: draft_with_placeholders
+- Overall posture: Cooperative and concise
+- Major risks: line numbers are not available
+- Suggested ordering: Reviewer 1 comments in order
+```
+
+## Expected tracker
+
+```markdown
+| ID | Reviewer concern | Type | Severity | Proposed action | Readiness | Missing author input |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| R1.1 | Define cross-domain calibration | Editorial / presentation | Minor | ACCEPT_TEXT | draft_with_placeholders | Line or section location |
+| R1.2 | Explain Figure 2 colour scale | Editorial / figure | Minor | ACCEPT_FIGURE | draft_with_placeholders | Line or legend location |
+```
+
+## Response style
+
+```text
+We agree that the original Introduction did not define this term clearly. We have revised the
+Introduction to define cross-domain calibration as adjustment of model output across datasets with
+different feature distributions. This change appears in the Introduction [location].
+```
+
+Do not invent line numbers.