Mind Revision And Response

---
name: mind-revision-and-response
description: Use when responding to a Mind decision — a revise-and-resubmit, a reject-with-encouragement, or referee reports to address before resubmitting. The response must answer expert philosophical objections without weakening the thesis, while keeping the manuscript prepared for triple-anonymous review. Structures the revision and the response letter; it does not fabricate new arguments.
---

# Revision & Response (mind-revision-and-response)

A Mind decision that invites resubmission is a strong signal at a venue with **>800 submissions a
year**. The referees are expert and their objections are philosophical, not procedural. The task is to
**answer each objection on its merits** — rebut, concede-and-limit, or bite the bullet — without
diluting the thesis that earned the invitation, and to keep the resubmission **prepared for
triple-anonymous review**.

## When to trigger

- A revise-and-resubmit or reject-with-encouragement arrived and you are planning the revision
- Referees disagree with each other and you must decide whom to follow
- A referee raises an objection that would, if right, change the conclusion
- Writing the response letter / cover note that accompanies the resubmission

## Strategy

1. **Read the editor's letter as the rubric.** The editor signals which objections are decisive. Solve
   those first; the editor adjudicates disagreements among referees.
2. **One point-by-point response, every objection addressed.** Quote each referee point, then respond.
   Never skip one — silence reads as evasion to an expert reader.
3. **Answer philosophically, not deferentially.** For each objection do one of three things and say
   which: **rebut** (show it fails, with a reason), **concede and limit** (narrow the thesis so it no
   longer bites), or **bite the bullet** (accept the cost and argue it is worth paying). A well-argued
   disagreement earns more respect than a capitulation that breaks the argument.
4. **Protect the thesis.** Sharpen, qualify, and add the missing reply — but resist changes that hollow
   out the central claim. Defend scope conditions rather than retreating into vagueness.
5. **Reconcile conflicting referees openly.** When one wants the opposite of another, say so, choose a
   principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor. Do not silently satisfy one and ignore the other.
6. **Keep it anonymous and house-style-ready.** The resubmission must remain prepared for
   **triple-anonymous** review (no self-identifying additions), line-numbered, and consistent with the
   **MIND house style** for any accepted-stage copy (see `mind-citation-and-style`, `mind-submission`).

## Response-letter format

For each referee point:

```
> [Quoted referee comment]

Response: [Rebut / concede-and-limit / bite-the-bullet — with the actual reason].
Change: [Section / page / line numbers where the revision appears].
```

Open with a short **summary of the main changes** to the editor; group by referee; end each entry with
the **location** of the change so the editor and referees can verify quickly.

## Anti-patterns

- Ignoring or quietly merging away an objection without a visible response
- Capitulating to a request that breaks the argument just to placate a referee
- A defensive or dismissive tone toward expert referees
- "We thank the referee" with no actual change and no argued reason
- Adding a concession that silently undercuts the original thesis
- Reintroducing self-identifying material into the resubmission (breaks anonymity)

## Output format

```
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every referee objection answered? [Y/N]
【Each response tagged】rebut / concede-and-limit / bite-the-bullet + change location
【Referee conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Thesis protected】no dilution of the central claim? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + line numbers preserved】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via ScholarOne
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — triple-anonymous policy, referee process, resubmission via ScholarOne