Review Response

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

Core Features

Review Analysis

- Parse and classify reviewer comments (Major/Minor/Typo/Misunderstanding)

Response Strategy

- Develop response strategies for different comment types (Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment)

Rebuttal Writing

- Write structured, professional rebuttal documents

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

Provide reviewer comments

- Share the reviewer comments text or file with Claude

Analysis and classification

- Claude automatically parses and classifies the comments

Strategy recommendations

- Receive response strategy suggestions for each comment

Write rebuttal

- Generate a structured rebuttal document based on the strategy

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 - Quick-start the rebuttal workflow