Peer Review Response Drafter

Peer Review Response Drafter

Assist researchers in crafting professional, polite, and effective responses to peer reviewer comments for academic journal submissions.

Overview

This skill parses reviewer comments, drafts structured responses, and adjusts tone to ensure:

When to Use

Workflow

Step 1: Parse Input

Step 2: Structure Response Letter

Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript titled 
"[Title]" submitted to [Journal]. We have carefully addressed all 
comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is our 
point-by-point response to each reviewer's comments.
Reviewer #1:
[Numbered responses]
Reviewer #2:
[Numbered responses]
...
Sincerely,
[Authors]

Step 3: Draft Individual Responses

For each reviewer comment, generate a response containing:

1. Acknowledgment: Thank the reviewer for the observation 2. Action taken: Describe the change made (if applicable) 3. Location indicator: Page/line number where change appears 4. Optional rationale: Brief explanation if no change was made

#### Response Templates

Accepting a suggestion:

Comment: The methodology section lacks detail on data preprocessing.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. 
We have expanded the methodology section to include detailed 
descriptions of data preprocessing steps, including normalization, 
outlier removal, and feature selection procedures (Page 5, Lines 120-135).

Partial acceptance with modification:

Comment: The authors should use Method X instead of Method Y.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. While Method X 
is indeed widely used, we found that Method Y is more appropriate 
for our specific dataset due to [brief rationale]. However, we have 
added a comparative discussion of both methods in the revised 
manuscript (Page 8, Lines 200-210) to acknowledge this alternative 
approach.

Politely declining:

Comment: The authors should remove Figure 3 as it seems redundant.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Upon careful 
consideration, we believe Figure 3 provides essential visual 
support for the key finding discussed in Section 4.2. To enhance 
clarity, we have revised the figure caption to better emphasize 
its unique contribution (Page 10, Figure 3 caption).

Step 4: Tone Adjustment

Adjust language based on context:

| Tone | Use Case | Example Phrasing | |------|----------|------------------| | Diplomatic | General revisions | "We thank..." / "We appreciate..." / "We have revised..." | | Assertive | Defending methodology | "We respectfully note..." / "Our approach is justified because..." | | Grateful | Major improvements | "We are grateful for..." / "This significantly improved..." |

Input Format

Accept multiple input formats:

Output Format

Returns a complete response letter with:

Usage Example

User: Help me draft a response to these reviewer comments:
Reviewer 1:
1. The introduction should better motivate the problem
2. Figure 2 is unclear
3. Have you considered Smith et al. 2023?
My changes:
1. Added motivation paragraph
2. Redrew Figure 2 with clearer labels
3. Added citation and discussion
Journal: Nature Communications

Parameters

| Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description | |-----------|------|----------|---------|-------------| | --interactive | flag | No | - | Interactive mode: Guided wizard with prompts (uses input()). Recommended for first-time users or complex responses | | --input-file | str | No | - | Path to reviewer comments file (automation mode) | | --output | str | No | - | Output file path for response letter | | --tone | str | No | "diplomatic" | Response tone: "diplomatic", "formal", or "assertive" | | --format | str | No | "markdown" | Output format: "markdown", "plain_text", or "latex" | | --include-diff | bool | No | true | Whether to summarize changes made |

Usage Modes:

Technical Notes

References

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

Risk Assessment

| Risk Indicator | Assessment | Level | |----------------|------------|-------| | Code Execution | Python/R scripts executed locally | Medium | | Network Access | No external API calls | Low | | File System Access | Read input files, write output files | Medium | | Instruction Tampering | Standard prompt guidelines | Low | | Data Exposure | Output files saved to workspace | Low |

Security Checklist

Prerequisites

# Python dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt

Evaluation Criteria

Success Metrics

Test Cases

Lifecycle Status

# Python dependencies
pip install -r requirements.txt