runtsang/review-response

Review Response Strategy Guide

RebuttalStudio Utility — Stage-General This skill applies across the full 5-stage rebuttal pipeline. It provides strategic guidance for classifying reviewer comments and choosing response approaches, complementing the stage-specific breakdown and refinement skills.

A systematic framework for analyzing reviewer comments and developing high-quality, professionally grounded rebuttal responses.

---

Comment Classification

Every reviewer comment belongs to one of four types. Identify the type before selecting a strategy.

| Type | Description | Examples | |------|-------------|---------| | Major | Core scientific or methodological concerns that affect the paper's conclusions | "The baseline comparison is unfair", "The claims are unsupported by experiments" | | Minor | Peripheral concerns about presentation, wording, or supplementary experiments | "Figure 3 is hard to read", "Missing ablation on X" | | Misunderstanding | Reviewer has misread or misinterpreted the paper | "The authors do not compare with Y" (but Y is in Table 2) | | Typo / Clarity | Factual errors, grammar, or unclear exposition | "Definition 2 appears to be incorrect", "Section 3 is confusing" |

---

Response Strategies

After classification, select the appropriate response strategy:

| Strategy | When to Use | Core Approach | |----------|-------------|---------------| | Accept | Reviewer is correct; the concern is valid | Acknowledge explicitly, describe the change made, point to location | | Defend | Reviewer's concern is based on a valid scientific disagreement | Provide evidence, cite prior work, offer additional data if available | | Clarify | Reviewer has a misunderstanding that the paper actually addresses | Quote the relevant section, explain why the concern does not apply | | Experiment | Reviewer requests additional empirical validation | Describe the experiment, provide preliminary results if possible |

---

Core Principles

These apply to every response at every stage, from Stage 2 draft outlines to Stage 4 follow-up refinement:

1. Acknowledge strengths before criticism — Thank reviewers for recognized contributions before addressing concerns. Even a brief acknowledgment improves tone.

2. Anchor to evidence — Every claim in a response must be backed by: a paper section, a result in the supplementary, a cited prior work, or a new experiment. Do not assert without grounding.

3. Address all concerns — An unreplied-to comment is treated by reviewers as evasion. Even a one-sentence acknowledgment is better than silence.

4. No defensive language — Phrases like "the reviewer is incorrect" or "this criticism is unfounded" damage tone. Prefer collaborative phrasing: "We believe this may stem from…", "To clarify our intent…"

5. Completeness over brevity — Concision matters, but do not sacrifice completeness. A reviewer who feels dismissed will lower the score.

---

Success Factors (from ICLR Spotlight Paper Analysis)

Key lessons distilled from analyzing accepted papers' rebuttals:

1. Acknowledge Strengths, Respond Positively to Criticism

• Even spotlight papers receive constructive criticism
• Reviewers are more receptive when they feel their positive observations were noted
• Strategy: Lead with appreciation, then address each concern specifically

2. Provide Clarity and Intuitive Understanding

• High-quality work can still have presentation gaps
• Reviewers with different backgrounds may need extra scaffolding
• Strategy: Expand explanations inline, move heavy derivations to appendix, add step-by-step walkthroughs where missing

3. Thorough Justification of Experimental Choices

• Reviewers may question design decisions that seem obvious to the authors
• Alternative metrics and ablations demonstrate rigor
• Strategy: Justify each major choice; offer to add ablations if feasible within the rebuttal period

4. Address Ethics and Limitations Proactively

• Especially important for sensitive application areas
• Unaddressed limitations signal incomplete scholarship
• Strategy: If a reviewer raises an ethical concern, respond directly with the paper's safeguards or discuss as a known limitation

5. Emphasize Practical Value and Scalability

• Reviewers respond well to practical impact framing
• Show that the contribution generalizes beyond the specific setting tested
• Strategy: Add one or two sentences about broader applicability if not already present in the paper

---

Integration with RebuttalStudio Stages

| Stage | How to Use This Skill | |-------|-----------------------| | Stage 1 — Breakdown | After receiving reviewer text, apply the classification table to categorize each atomic issue before writing titles | | Stage 2 — Reply | Use the Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment framework when drafting outlines; choose the strategy that matches each issue type | | Stage 4 — Multi-Round | Re-apply classification to follow-up comments; use "Clarify" or "Experiment" strategy for reviewer persistence | | Stage 5 — Final Remarks | Summarize the response strategies used for each reviewer in the final remarks |

---

Rebuttal Structure Template

For a well-structured per-reviewer rebuttal block:

We thank Reviewer [X] for their thoughtful and constructive feedback.

**Response to [Issue Title]**

> "[quoted reviewer comment]"

[Strategy: Accept / Defend / Clarify / Experiment]

[Response body: acknowledgment → direct answer → evidence → forward-looking note]

**Changes made**: [Section X, paragraph Y; or "no change needed because…"]

---

Adapted from Claude Scholar's review-response skill by gaoruizhang. Original: https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar/blob/main/skills/review-response/SKILL.md