STEM Rebuttal Writer
Purpose
Use this skill to turn reviewer comments into a calm, strategic, technically credible response. It is designed for STEM journals and conferences where the response must be respectful, specific, and evidence-based.
Inputs To Ask For
- Decision letter and reviewer comments.
- Manuscript title, field, and target venue.
- User's planned changes or constraints.
- Page, line, figure, table, or section references if available.
- Rebuttal length limit for conferences.
Workflow
Triage comments.
- Classify each comment as fatal risk, major revision, minor revision, misunderstanding, request for clarification, or optional suggestion.
- Group duplicate comments across reviewers.
Build response strategy.
- Accept valid criticism plainly.
- Explain revisions with exact manuscript locations.
- For disagreements, provide evidence and stay concise.
- Avoid defensive wording.
Draft point-by-point replies.
- Thank the reviewer.
- State the action taken.
- Summarize the new or revised text, experiment, analysis, figure, or limitation.
- Reference manuscript location.
Handle hard cases.
- Missing experiment: propose added experiment, justify why impossible, or add limitation if truly infeasible.
- Misunderstanding: revise manuscript so future readers will not misunderstand.
- Conflicting reviewer requests: explain balanced revision.
- Overbroad request: narrow the feasible scope and justify.
Prepare revision plan.
- List manuscript changes in priority order.
- Identify experiments or analyses that must be completed before final response.
Response Templates
Use respectful, direct language:
We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have revised Section X to clarify ...
We agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently justify ... We have added ...
We respectfully clarify that ... To avoid this ambiguity, we revised ...
Output Format
Provide:
- Comment triage table.
- Revision action plan.
- Point-by-point response draft.
- Short cover letter to the editor or area chair when appropriate.
- Risk notes for comments that require new experiments or supervisor confirmation.
Quality Checklist
- Every reviewer comment receives a direct answer.
- The response says what changed and where.
- Disagreements are evidence-based and restrained.
- New claims are supported by manuscript changes.
- The tone is appreciative, professional, and not apologetic beyond what is warranted.
1---2name: stem-rebuttal-writer3description: Draft reviewer responses, rebuttal letters, response-to-reviewers documents, revision plans, and point-by-point replies for STEM journal and conference submissions. Use when users have reviewer comments, decision letters, major/minor revision requests, reject-and-resubmit advice, or conference rebuttal constraints. Trigger phrases include rebuttal, response to reviewers, revision letter, reviewer comments, major revision, minor revision, appeal, point-by-point response, and Chinese requests about shengao huifu or fanxiu.4---56# STEM Rebuttal Writer78## Purpose910Use this skill to turn reviewer comments into a calm, strategic, technically credible response. It is designed for STEM journals and conferences where the response must be respectful, specific, and evidence-based.1112## Inputs To Ask For1314- Decision letter and reviewer comments.15- Manuscript title, field, and target venue.16- User's planned changes or constraints.17- Page, line, figure, table, or section references if available.18- Rebuttal length limit for conferences.1920## Workflow21221. Triage comments.23 - Classify each comment as fatal risk, major revision, minor revision, misunderstanding, request for clarification, or optional suggestion.24 - Group duplicate comments across reviewers.25262. Build response strategy.27 - Accept valid criticism plainly.28 - Explain revisions with exact manuscript locations.29 - For disagreements, provide evidence and stay concise.30 - Avoid defensive wording.31323. Draft point-by-point replies.33 - Thank the reviewer.34 - State the action taken.35 - Summarize the new or revised text, experiment, analysis, figure, or limitation.36 - Reference manuscript location.37384. Handle hard cases.39 - Missing experiment: propose added experiment, justify why impossible, or add limitation if truly infeasible.40 - Misunderstanding: revise manuscript so future readers will not misunderstand.41 - Conflicting reviewer requests: explain balanced revision.42 - Overbroad request: narrow the feasible scope and justify.43445. Prepare revision plan.45 - List manuscript changes in priority order.46 - Identify experiments or analyses that must be completed before final response.4748## Response Templates4950Use respectful, direct language:5152```text53We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have revised Section X to clarify ...54```5556```text57We agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently justify ... We have added ...58```5960```text61We respectfully clarify that ... To avoid this ambiguity, we revised ...62```6364## Output Format6566Provide:6768- Comment triage table.69- Revision action plan.70- Point-by-point response draft.71- Short cover letter to the editor or area chair when appropriate.72- Risk notes for comments that require new experiments or supervisor confirmation.7374## Quality Checklist7576- Every reviewer comment receives a direct answer.77- The response says what changed and where.78- Disagreements are evidence-based and restrained.79- New claims are supported by manuscript changes.80- The tone is appreciative, professional, and not apologetic beyond what is warranted.81
Xiangdong-415