43 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
43 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|