Use when writing the response to a Psychological Bulletin revise-and-resubmit. A synthesis R&R often demands re-running the search, adding studies, or new bias/moderator analyses, so the response must satisfy every reviewer and the editor while keeping the meta-analysis internally consistent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate results.
Scanned 6/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill psychbull-rebuttal --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Psychbull Rebuttal?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-psychbull-rebuttal)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: psychbull-rebuttal
description: Use when writing the response to a Psychological Bulletin revise-and-resubmit. A synthesis R&R often demands re-running the search, adding studies, or new bias/moderator analyses, so the response must satisfy every reviewer and the editor while keeping the meta-analysis internally consistent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate results.
---
# R&R Rebuttal (psychbull-rebuttal)
A Psychological Bulletin **R&R** on a synthesis is distinctive: reviewer requests often touch the
**search, eligibility, coding, model, or bias analyses** — any of which can ripple through every
downstream estimate, table, and figure. The response letter must convert each reviewer and keep the
editor confident **without breaking the synthesis's internal consistency** or its deposited package.
## When to trigger
- An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- A reviewer wants the search expanded, studies added, or eligibility changed
- A reviewer requests a different model, more moderators, or more bias diagnostics
- Reviewers disagree and you must reconcile their demands
## Strategy
1. **Read the editor's letter as the rubric.** The editor flags the decisive points; solve those first.
2. **One point-by-point response, every comment addressed.** Quote each comment, then respond; never
skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. **Propagate changes consistently.** If you **expand the search or change eligibility**, you must
re-run **everything downstream** — pooled effect, heterogeneity, moderators, bias diagnostics,
PRISMA counts, every table and figure — and keep them mutually consistent. State the new k.
4. **Concede or rebut with evidence.** Did what was asked (say where, with new numbers/exhibit numbers),
or push back respectfully on methodological grounds (e.g., why an unplanned moderator stays
exploratory, why a bias test is uninformative under high heterogeneity).
5. **Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly.** When one wants broader inclusion and another stricter,
choose a principled rule, apply it, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
6. **Protect the contribution.** Add robustness and clarification; resist changes that dilute the
synthesis or over-claim beyond the evidence and heterogeneity.
7. **Keep it masked and update the package.** The revised manuscript stays masked; **update the
deposited database, codebook, and scripts** so new estimates remain reproducible.
## Response-letter format
For each reviewer comment:
```
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page; new k; table/figure number; updated estimate].
```
Open with a short **summary of the main changes** to the editor (especially any change in study count
or model); group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of every change for quick verification.
## Anti-patterns
- Adding studies but leaving stale estimates/figures from the old pool (inconsistent synthesis)
- Ignoring or silently merging a comment
- Capitulating to a request that breaks eligibility logic just to please a reviewer
- Reporting a new bias test without acknowledging it changes the bottom line
- Letting the revised manuscript drift out of sync with the deposited package
- Reintroducing author clues while editing (breaks masking)
## Output format
```
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Re-run propagated】new k; all estimates/exhibits consistent? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained? [Y/N]
【Masked + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — re-running the search/analysis; keeping the package in sync
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — masked review and transparency policy behind the response
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!