Co Scientist Peer Review

Peer Review

Self-review, reviewer response, and revision management.

Use This Skill When

• Responding to peer reviewer comments.
• Drafting a point-by-point response letter.
• Conducting a self-review before submission.
• Tracking changes between manuscript versions.

Workflow

1. Parse reviewer comments:

   • Categorize: Major revision / Minor revision / Clarification / Editorial
   • Prioritize by impact on manuscript

2. Draft point-by-point response:

   • Address each comment individually
   • Quote the original comment
   • State the action taken
   • Reference specific manuscript changes (page, line, section)

3. Apply revisions to manuscript:

   • Track all changes with before/after references
   • Ensure consistency across sections

4. Self-review checklist (pre-submission):

   • Logical flow from Introduction to Discussion
   • All figures and tables referenced
   • Statistical reporting completeness
   • Citation accuracy

Deliverables

• report.md: revision summary.
• results/response-letter.md: point-by-point response.
• results/revision-log.md: change tracking table.
• results/self-review-checklist.md: pre-submission checklist.

Output Template (Response Letter)

# Response to Reviewers

## Reviewer 1

### Comment 1.1 [Major]
> [Original reviewer comment]

**Response**: [Detailed response]
**Action**: [Specific changes made]
**Location**: [Section/Page/Line]

### Comment 1.2 [Minor]
> [Original reviewer comment]

**Response**: [Detailed response]
**Action**: [Specific changes made]
**Location**: [Section/Page/Line]

Quality Gates

• Every reviewer comment is addressed individually.
• Response distinguishes between agreement, partial agreement, and respectful disagreement.
• Each response references specific manuscript changes.
• Revision log tracks all changes with before/after.

If any gate fails: identify the specific failing check, fix the issue, and re-validate before proceeding.

Gotchas

• 査読者のコメントに反論する場合も、まず感謝を述べてから根拠を示すこと。攻撃的な応答はリジェクトにつながる
• 「修正しました」だけでは不十分。何をどう修正したか具体的に記述すること
• 査読者間で矛盾するコメントがある場合は、両者に対して整合的な対応方針を提示すること
• 大幅な追加実験・分析を要求された場合は、フィジビリティを確認してからコミットすること

Validation Loop

1. レスポンスレターを生成
2. チェック:
   • 全コメントに個別回答があるか
   • 各回答に具体的な修正内容が含まれるか
   • 原稿の修正箇所が明示されているか（セクション/行番号）
   • 矛盾する対応がないか
3. 不合格なら修正
4. 合格後のみ投稿