132 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
132 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|
|
```
|