rebuttal-revision-strategy

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Rebuttal Revision Strategy

反驳信与论文修订策略

Use this after receiving reviews or internal adversarial review. The goal is to respond precisely, respectfully, and strategically without overstating evidence.

本策略适用于收到审稿意见或内部评审之后。目标是精准、礼貌且有策略地回应，避免夸大证据。

Read First

必读文档

```
references/peer-review-policy.md
```

references/research-positioning-policy.md

```
references/peer-review-policy.md
```

references/research-positioning-policy.md

Workflow

工作流程

Split every review into atomic concerns.
Classify each concern: misunderstanding, valid limitation, missing evidence, writing issue, incorrect claim, scope mismatch, or unfixable weakness.
Decide action: concede, clarify, add evidence, reframe, defend, or defer.
Draft response with direct answer first, then evidence, then promised change.
Avoid new claims that cannot be added to the paper or artifact.
Save concern mapping in
```
reports/rebuttal/
```
.
Update manuscript,
```
docs/methodology/threats-to-validity.md
```
, and wiki claim pages.

将每条审稿意见拆解为独立的具体关注点。
对每个关注点进行分类：误解、合理局限性、证据缺失、写作问题、错误主张、范围不符，或是无法修正的缺陷。
确定应对措施：让步、澄清、补充证据、重构表述、辩护，或是延后处理。
撰写回复时，先给出直接答复，再提供证据，最后说明承诺的修改内容。
避免提出无法在论文或相关成果中补充的新主张。
将关注点梳理结果保存至
```
reports/rebuttal/
```
目录下。
更新手稿、
```
docs/methodology/threats-to-validity.md
```
文档，以及维基上的主张页面。

Response Pattern

回复模板

Use this structure:

thank and acknowledge
answer the exact concern
cite evidence or planned change
state manuscript location to change
avoid argumentative tone

采用以下结构：

感谢并认可审稿意见
针对具体问题给出答复
引用证据或说明计划的修改
指明手稿中需要修改的位置
避免争辩语气

Do Not

注意事项

Ignore a reviewer concern because it seems unfair.
Promise experiments that cannot be completed before the deadline.
Defend a claim that the evidence does not support.
Write a response that cannot be mirrored in the revised paper.

不要因认为审稿意见不公而忽略任何关注点。
不要承诺在截止日期前无法完成的实验。
不要为缺乏证据支撑的主张辩护。
不要撰写无法在修订版论文中体现的回复内容。