Pom Rebuttal

Name: Pom Rebuttal
Author: brycewang-stanford

ASecurity

Use when drafting the revision and point-by-point response after a Production and Operations Management (POM) revise-and-resubmit — addressing the Department Editor and referees, splitting changes between the main paper and the e-companion, and respecting the 32-page cap. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (pom-review-process).

1,052 stars

0 votes

0 copies

0 views

Added 6/6/2026

ai-agents

Works with

cli

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 6/6/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pom-rebuttal --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Pom Rebuttal?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/brycewang-stanford-pom-rebuttal/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-pom-rebuttal)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download with Pro

Files

SKILL.md

---
name: pom-rebuttal
description: Use when drafting the revision and point-by-point response after a Production and Operations Management (POM) revise-and-resubmit — addressing the Department Editor and referees, splitting changes between the main paper and the e-companion, and respecting the 32-page cap. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (pom-review-process).
---

# R&R Response & Rebuttal (pom-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- You received a POM R&R and have planned (or made) the revision
- You must reconcile conflicting referee demands for the Department Editor
- A later-round decision asks you to defend or further revise prior changes

> Write the response letter **after** revising the manuscript, not before. Resubmit through ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/poms) to the **same Department Editor** where possible, and keep the revised main document within the **32-page** cap — push heavy new material into the unlimited online **e-companion**.

## Response-document structure

1. **Opening letter to the Department Editor.** Thank the editor and referees; summarize the most important changes in 2–4 sentences; state explicitly how you addressed the editor's stated priorities, including any practice-relevance concern. Note where referees conflicted and how you resolved it.
2. **Per-referee sections.** Restate every comment (verbatim or faithfully numbered), then respond.
3. **Point-by-point format** for each comment:
   - **Comment** (quoted/numbered)
   - **Response** (what you changed and the OM reasoning)
   - **Location** (main-paper section/table/figure **and** e-companion item)
   - **Implication** (how the change strengthens the theory and/or practice contribution)

## Responding to POM's signature demands

- **"Sharpen the operations mechanism / contribution."** Strengthen the mechanism and the managerial lever; show what the OM field now learns and what a manager does differently — do not merely add citations (see `pom-theory-development`, `pom-contribution-framing`).
- **"Practice relevance is unclear."** This is a real gate at POM. Translate results into operational magnitude (cost, fill rate, wait time) and an actionable decision; add evidence, not rhetoric.
- **"Strengthen the method."** For analytical work, add a proof, relax an assumption, or extend the numerical study (full derivations → e-companion). For empirical work, add identification or robustness; for data science, demonstrate operational value.
- **"Add analysis/study."** Often decisive — but watch the 32-page budget; new material typically lives in the e-companion so the main body stays within limit.

## Tone and tactics

- Be respectful and substantive; referees are colleagues investing in the paper.
- Concede gracefully where they are right; make the change.
- Disagree with evidence, not assertion; if you decline a request, give an OM reason and an alternative analysis where possible.
- Address every point — silent omissions read as evasion.
- Surface referee conflicts to the Department Editor and state your chosen resolution.
- Do not reframe a barred resubmission as a normal revision — only an explicit invitation reopens POM.

## Checklist

- [ ] Manuscript actually revised before the letter was written
- [ ] Editor's priorities (incl. practice relevance) addressed first and explicitly
- [ ] Every referee comment restated and answered; none skipped
- [ ] Each response names main-paper **and** e-companion locations
- [ ] Mechanism/practice and method demands met with real changes, not citations only
- [ ] Revised main document still within 32 pages
- [ ] Referee conflicts surfaced and resolved for the editor

## Output format

```
【Decision round】1st R&R / 2nd round / ...
【Editor priorities addressed】1... 2... 3...
【Per-referee coverage】R1: x/x, R2: x/x, R3: x/x — all answered? yes/no
【Major changes】mechanism/practice: ... method/data: ... new analysis: ...
【Declined requests + justification】[...]
【Page/e-companion status】main pages within 32? new material → e-companion
【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne; on next decision → pom-review-process
```

Attribution

brycewang-stanford

View source More from brycewang-stanford →

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

--- name: pom-rebuttal description: Use when drafting the revision and point-by-point response after a Production and Operations Management (POM) revise-and-resubmit — addressing the Department Editor and referees, splitting changes between the main paper and the e-companion, and respecting the 32-page cap. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (pom-review-process). --- # R&R Response & Rebuttal (pom-rebuttal) ## When to trigger - You received a POM R&R and have planned (or made) the revision - You must reconcile conflicting referee demands for the Department Editor - A later-round decision asks you to defend or further revise prior changes > Write the response letter **after** revising the manuscript, not before. Resubmit through ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/poms) to the **same Department Editor** where possible, and keep the revised main document within the **32-page** cap — push heavy new material into the unlimited online **e-companion**. ## Response-document structure 1. **Opening letter to the Department Editor.** Thank the editor and referees; summarize the most important changes in 2–4 sentences; state explicitly how you addressed the editor's stated priorities, including any practice-relevance concern. Note where referees conflicted and how you resolved it. 2. **Per-referee sections.** Restate every comment (verbatim or faithfully numbered), then respond. 3. **Point-by-point format** for each comment: - **Comment** (quoted/numbered) - **Response** (what you changed and the OM reasoning) - **Location** (main-paper section/table/figure **and** e-companion item) - **Implication** (how the change strengthens the theory and/or practice contribution) ## Responding to POM's signature demands - **"Sharpen the operations mechanism / contribution."** Strengthen the mechanism and the managerial lever; show what the OM field now learns and what a manager does differently — do not merely add citations (see `pom-theory-development`, `pom-contribution-framing`). - **"Practice relevance is unclear."** This is a real gate at POM. Translate results into operational magnitude (cost, fill rate, wait time) and an actionable decision; add evidence, not rhetoric. - **"Strengthen the method."** For analytical work, add a proof, relax an assumption, or extend the numerical study (full derivations → e-companion). For empirical work, add identification or robustness; for data science, demonstrate operational value. - **"Add analysis/study."** Often decisive — but watch the 32-page budget; new material typically lives in the e-companion so the main body stays within limit. ## Tone and tactics - Be respectful and substantive; referees are colleagues investing in the paper. - Concede gracefully where they are right; make the change. - Disagree with evidence, not assertion; if you decline a request, give an OM reason and an alternative analysis where possible. - Address every point — silent omissions read as evasion. - Surface referee conflicts to the Department Editor and state your chosen resolution. - Do not reframe a barred resubmission as a normal revision — only an explicit invitation reopens POM. ## Checklist - [ ] Manuscript actually revised before the letter was written - [ ] Editor's priorities (incl. practice relevance) addressed first and explicitly - [ ] Every referee comment restated and answered; none skipped - [ ] Each response names main-paper **and** e-companion locations - [ ] Mechanism/practice and method demands met with real changes, not citations only - [ ] Revised main document still within 32 pages - [ ] Referee conflicts surfaced and resolved for the editor ## Output format ``` 【Decision round】1st R&R / 2nd round / ... 【Editor priorities addressed】1... 2... 3... 【Per-referee coverage】R1: x/x, R2: x/x, R3: x/x — all answered? yes/no 【Major changes】mechanism/practice: ... method/data: ... new analysis: ... 【Declined requests + justification】[...] 【Page/e-companion status】main pages within 32? new material → e-companion 【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne; on next decision → pom-review-process ```