Advanced Materials Revision (advmat-revision)
When to trigger
- Reviewer reports and an editor decision (major/minor revision, or reject) have arrived
- You need a point-by-point response and a marked-up manuscript
- Referees asked for additional characterization, benchmarking, or stability data
- The decision is a rejection and you must decide: appeal, revise-and-resubmit, or transfer
- A coauthor is drafting rebuttal language before the manuscript has actually changed
Read the decision before the reports
The editor's letter sets the terms; read it first.
- Minor revision — largely presentational or small additions; turn it around promptly and precisely.
- Major revision — substantive concerns; usually requires new data (added characterization, controls, stability). Address the science first, the prose second.
- Reject with encouragement to resubmit — treat as a major revision with a higher bar; the resubmission is judged largely on whether the core objection is truly resolved.
- Reject — decide between a reasoned appeal (only if the editor/referee made a clear factual error) and a transfer to a sibling Wiley journal (Adv. Funct. Mater., Adv. Sci., Small, AMI), which may carry the reviews with it.
Response-letter structure
- Open with thanks and a summary of the main changes and the new data added.
- Quote each referee point verbatim, then respond immediately beneath it.
- For every point: state what you changed, where (section/figure/SI number), and the evidence. "We added X" with a pointer beats a paragraph of argument.
- Where you disagree, do so with data and courtesy — concede what is fair, defend what the evidence supports, never dismiss.
- Provide a marked-up manuscript (tracked changes or highlighted) alongside the clean version.
Answering the characteristic materials objections
| Referee asks for... |
Strongest response |
| Proof the phase/structure is real |
Add the complementary technique (SAED, EXAFS, Rietveld) they expect |
| Representative morphology |
Add distributions/statistics over many particles/devices |
| Fair benchmarking |
Add a matched-condition comparison table with cited SOTA references |
| Stability / durability |
Add cycling/aging/operational-stability data (often to the SI) |
| Mechanism, not just correlation |
Add the control or computation that isolates the mechanism |
| Reproducibility |
Add batch-to-batch statistics (n, mean ± s.d.) and full recipe in SI |
| "Why not a lower-tier journal?" |
Sharpen the advance framing and the broad-impact argument |
Do the experiment when the objection is fair. A rebuttal that argues around missing data rarely survives a second round.
Scope discipline in revision
- Add what the referees asked for; resist bolting on unrelated new results that reopen the length budget.
- Keep the central advance fixed — a revision that changes the headline claim reads as a new paper.
- Re-run the fit and pointer audits after adding data (see
advmat-length-management, advmat-submission): new figures may push you over the page budget or break cross-references.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Arguing around a fair request for data instead of providing it
- Drafting rebuttal language before the manuscript and data are actually updated
- Dismissive or defensive tone toward a referee
- Silent changes not flagged in the response letter or the markup
- Adding unrelated new results that reopen length and consistency problems
- Appealing a rejection on preference when the referee raised a valid scientific gap
Output format
【Decision type】minor / major / reject-resubmit / reject → (appeal? transfer?)
【Per-point responses】R1.1 change+location+evidence / R1.2 ... / R2.1 ...
【New data added】characterization / benchmarking / stability / mechanism — list
【Disagreements】point — data-backed rationale
【Markup + clean versions】ready? yes / fix
【Length & cross-refs re-audited】yes / fix
【Next】advmat-submission (re-preflight) or transfer to sibling journal
Revision formats, appeal routes, and transfer options are set by Wiley and evolve — verify current options on the official Advanced Materials author page and in the editor's letter.
1---2name: advmat-revision3description: Use when responding to Advanced Materials reviewer reports and an editor's decision — major or minor revision, or a rejection with a resubmission or transfer path. Structures the response and the manuscript changes; does not perform the underlying new experiments.4---56# Advanced Materials Revision (advmat-revision)78## When to trigger910- Reviewer reports and an editor decision (major/minor revision, or reject) have arrived11- You need a point-by-point response and a marked-up manuscript12- Referees asked for additional characterization, benchmarking, or stability data13- The decision is a rejection and you must decide: appeal, revise-and-resubmit, or transfer14- A coauthor is drafting rebuttal language before the manuscript has actually changed1516## Read the decision before the reports1718The editor's letter sets the terms; read it first.1920- **Minor revision** — largely presentational or small additions; turn it around promptly and precisely.21- **Major revision** — substantive concerns; usually requires *new data* (added characterization, controls, stability). Address the science first, the prose second.22- **Reject with encouragement to resubmit** — treat as a major revision with a higher bar; the resubmission is judged largely on whether the core objection is truly resolved.23- **Reject** — decide between a reasoned appeal (only if the editor/referee made a clear factual error) and a **transfer** to a sibling Wiley journal (Adv. Funct. Mater., Adv. Sci., Small, AMI), which may carry the reviews with it.2425## Response-letter structure2627- **Open with thanks and a summary** of the main changes and the new data added.28- **Quote each referee point verbatim**, then respond immediately beneath it.29- For every point: state **what you changed**, **where** (section/figure/SI number), and **the evidence**. "We added X" with a pointer beats a paragraph of argument.30- Where you disagree, do so **with data and courtesy** — concede what is fair, defend what the evidence supports, never dismiss.31- Provide a **marked-up manuscript** (tracked changes or highlighted) alongside the clean version.3233## Answering the characteristic materials objections3435| Referee asks for... | Strongest response |36|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|37| Proof the phase/structure is real | Add the complementary technique (SAED, EXAFS, Rietveld) they expect |38| Representative morphology | Add distributions/statistics over many particles/devices |39| Fair benchmarking | Add a matched-condition comparison table with cited SOTA references |40| Stability / durability | Add cycling/aging/operational-stability data (often to the SI) |41| Mechanism, not just correlation | Add the control or computation that isolates the mechanism |42| Reproducibility | Add batch-to-batch statistics (n, mean ± s.d.) and full recipe in SI |43| "Why not a lower-tier journal?" | Sharpen the advance framing and the broad-impact argument |4445Do the experiment when the objection is fair. A rebuttal that argues around missing data rarely survives a second round.4647## Scope discipline in revision4849- Add what the referees asked for; resist bolting on unrelated new results that reopen the length budget.50- Keep the central advance fixed — a revision that changes the headline claim reads as a new paper.51- Re-run the fit and pointer audits after adding data (see `advmat-length-management`, `advmat-submission`): new figures may push you over the page budget or break cross-references.5253## Checklist5455- [ ] The editor's decision terms are understood before drafting56- [ ] Every referee point is quoted and answered individually57- [ ] Each response states what changed, where, and the evidence58- [ ] Requested new characterization / benchmarking / stability data actually added59- [ ] Disagreements are backed by data and phrased courteously60- [ ] A marked-up manuscript accompanies the clean version61- [ ] Length budget and all cross-references re-checked after additions62- [ ] The central advance is unchanged; scope creep avoided6364## Anti-patterns6566- Arguing around a fair request for data instead of providing it67- Drafting rebuttal language before the manuscript and data are actually updated68- Dismissive or defensive tone toward a referee69- Silent changes not flagged in the response letter or the markup70- Adding unrelated new results that reopen length and consistency problems71- Appealing a rejection on preference when the referee raised a valid scientific gap7273## Output format7475```76【Decision type】minor / major / reject-resubmit / reject → (appeal? transfer?)77【Per-point responses】R1.1 change+location+evidence / R1.2 ... / R2.1 ...78【New data added】characterization / benchmarking / stability / mechanism — list79【Disagreements】point — data-backed rationale80【Markup + clean versions】ready? yes / fix81【Length & cross-refs re-audited】yes / fix82【Next】advmat-submission (re-preflight) or transfer to sibling journal83```8485> Revision formats, appeal routes, and transfer options are set by Wiley and evolve — verify current options on the official Advanced Materials author page and in the editor's letter.
brycewang-stanford