Sci Rebuttal

---
name: sci-rebuttal
description: Use after Science reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and honest about limits. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.
---

# Reviewer Rebuttal (sci-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- A decision letter arrives (reject / reject-but-resubmit / major or minor revision).
- You have reviewer comments and need a strategy before writing.
- A revision is drafted and you need the point-by-point response letter.

## Step 0: read the editor's letter first

The **editor's** framing outranks individual reviewers. Identify:

- The decision type and whether a new review round is implied.
- Which concerns the editor **emphasizes** (these are load-bearing — address fully).
- Any **deal-breaker** the editor names (e.g., "the central claim needs independent validation").

> A "reject but would consider a new submission" is an invitation gated on the deal-breaker. Don't treat it as a flat reject, but don't under-deliver either.

## Triage every comment into 4 buckets

| Bucket             | Action                                                            |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Do** (fair, feasible) | Make the change; show it; quote the new text/figure.        |
| **Do-partial**     | Do what's feasible; explain the boundary with evidence.          |
| **Defend** (wrong/out of scope) | Push back respectfully, with data/citations — not assertion. |
| **Defer** (future work) | Acknowledge; add a sentence to the text; don't over-promise. |

Most rejections-on-revision come from **silently skipping** a load-bearing comment or **defending** when an experiment was actually needed.

## Prioritize the experiments

- Rank requested experiments by **(impact on the central claim) × (feasibility)**.
- The reviewer's #1 concern about the **main claim** must be answered with data, not prose.
- If an experiment is infeasible, offer the **strongest alternative evidence** and say why the alternative suffices.

## Response-letter format

For each comment:

```
Reviewer N, Comment k: <verbatim quote of the reviewer>

Response: <what we did / our reasoning>. <Evidence: new Fig./table, statistics.>
Changes: "<quoted new manuscript text>" (p. X, lines Y–Z; new fig. Sk).
```

- Open with a short thank-you and a 3–4 line summary of the **major changes** across the whole revision.
- Quote each comment verbatim; never paraphrase a reviewer in a way that softens their point.
- **Quote the new manuscript text** so the editor can verify without hunting.
- Use a consistent visual convention (e.g., reviewer text plain, your response indented, manuscript quotes in italics/color).

## Tone rules

- Respectful and non-defensive, even when the reviewer misread the paper — if they misread it, the writing was unclear; fix the writing **and** explain.
- Concede real limitations explicitly; an honest limitation paragraph builds credibility.
- No sarcasm, no "as we clearly stated" — assume good faith.

## Over-claiming watch (Science-specific)

If a reviewer says the conclusion outruns the data, this is the **most dangerous** comment for a Science paper. Either add the evidence or **narrow the claim** in the abstract, title, and last paragraph — and say you did. Re-run `sci-fit` if the narrowed claim weakens broad significance.

## Output format

```
【Decision type】 reject / reject-resubmit / major / minor
【Editor's load-bearing concerns】 [...]
【Deal-breaker】 ... → plan to resolve
【Comment triage】 Do [...] / Do-partial [...] / Defend [...] / Defer [...]
【Experiment priority】 ranked by impact × feasibility
【Claim integrity】 any narrowing needed? (re-check sci-fit)
【Response letter】 drafted point-by-point with quoted changes
```

## Anti-patterns

- **Do not** silently skip a comment the editor emphasized.
- **Do not** defend by assertion where the reviewer asked for data.
- **Do not** over-promise future work to dodge a needed experiment.
- **Do not** draft the response before the manuscript is actually revised.