Review Response

A systematic review response workflow that helps researchers efficiently and professionally reply to reviewer comments.

Core Features

1. Review Analysis – Parse and classify reviewer comments (Major/Minor/Typo/Misunderstanding)
2. Response Strategy – Develop response strategies for different comment types (Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment)
3. Rebuttal Writing – Write structured, professional rebuttal documents
4. Tone Management – Optimize tone to maintain professionalism, respect, and evidence-based arguments

Workflow

Receive reviewer comments -> Parse and classify -> Develop strategy -> Write responses -> Tone check -> Final rebuttal

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to:

• “Help me write a rebuttal”
• “How to respond to reviewer comments”
• “Analyze these review comments”
• “Develop a review response strategy”

Usage Steps

1. Provide reviewer comments – Share the reviewer comments text or file with Claude
2. Analysis and classification – Claude automatically parses and classifies the comments
3. Strategy recommendations – Receive response strategy suggestions for each comment
4. Write rebuttal – Generate a structured rebuttal document based on the strategy
5. Optimize tone – Review and optimize the professionalism and politeness of responses

Core Principles

• Professionalism – Maintain an academically professional tone and expression
• Respectfulness – Respect the reviewers’ opinions and time
• Evidence-based – Support every response with sufficient reasoning and evidence
• Completeness – Ensure all reviewer comments receive a response

Success Factors (Based on ICLR Spotlight Paper Analysis)

Key lessons extracted from successful rebuttal cases:

1. Acknowledge Strengths, Respond Positively to Criticism

• Reviewers will first acknowledge the paper’s strengths (novelty, impact, practical applicability)
• Even spotlight papers receive constructive criticism
• Strategy: Thank reviewers for acknowledged strengths first, then address criticism specifically

2. Provide Clarity and Intuitive Understanding

• Even high-quality papers may have clarity issues
• Need to provide intuition and detailed explanations for readers with different backgrounds
• Strategy: Expand key sections, move technical details to appendix, add step-by-step walkthroughs

3. Thorough Justification of Experimental Setup

• Need to justify experimental setup choices
• Consider and discuss alternative metrics
• Provide comprehensive experiments to support claims
• Strategy: Add ablation studies, explain why specific experimental setups were chosen

4. Emphasis on Ethical Considerations

• For research involving privacy, security, and other sensitive topics, ethical considerations are crucial
• Reviewers pay special attention to ethical implications
• Strategy: Proactively discuss ethical considerations, even if reviewers don’t explicitly request it

5. Highlight Practical Application Value

• Reviewers value practical applicability and scalability of methods
• “Easily applicable” and “scalable” are important strengths
• Strategy: Emphasize practical benefits and scalability in the rebuttal

Reference Documents

For detailed guides, refer to:

• references/review-classification.md – Review comment classification criteria
• references/response-strategies.md – Response strategy library
• references/rebuttal-templates.md – Rebuttal templates and examples
• references/tone-guidelines.md – Tone and expression guidelines

Related Tools

• Agent: rebuttal-writer – Dedicated agent for rebuttal writing and optimization
• Command: /rebuttal <review_file> – Quick-start the rebuttal workflow