Turn reviewer comments into specific revision actions and courteous responses without claiming changes or analyses that have not been done.
No public result for version 1 yet
Version 1 · 2 variables · 2 required
Fill in the values below — the customized prompt updates as you type. marks a required value.
Actual reviewer comments with stable identifiers. Default: R1.1: Explain how teams were recruited. R1.2: The conclusion implies causality despite an observational design.
Relevant text, verified findings and clearly identified completed revisions. Default: Methods: teams volunteered through a professional mailing list. Discussion: the tool caused better coordination. No revisions completed yet.
Prepare a response plan for these reviewer comments.
Reviewer comments with IDs: R1.1: Explain how teams were recruited. R1.2: The conclusion implies causality despite an observational design.
Relevant manuscript text and completed changes: Methods: teams volunteered through a professional mailing list. Discussion: the tool caused better coordination. No revisions completed yet.
For each comment, restate the substantive concern, identify the supporting manuscript passage, and classify the response as clarify, revise, add analysis, or respectfully disagree. Explain the reasoning behind the classification.
Provide a table with comment ID, proposed action, evidence needed, draft response and manuscript locator. Separate changes already completed from planned work. Use future tense or explicit placeholders for work that remains; never state that an analysis was run or text changed unless the input confirms it.
Where disagreement is warranted, acknowledge the concern and give a concise evidence-based rationale. Preserve limitations rather than arguing them away. End with unresolved dependencies and a final consistency-check list.No public examples yet for version 1
Curated prompt only. No example output or model test is attached; model compatibility has not been verified. Default inputs are illustrative practice material; replace them with your own facts and context.
Reports go to moderators and are never shown publicly.
No public results yet
Prioritize the main finding, section text and figures for a conference poster while preserving evidence limits and venue constraints.
No public results yet
Build a source-grounded glossary that preserves differences in definitions, assumptions and measurement across fields.
No public results yet
Find unmatched citations, unused references, inconsistent author-year labels and missing bibliographic fields without inventing metadata.
No public results yet
Translate a research question into observable events, recording fields and pilot checks that different observers can follow consistently.
No public results yet
Develop provisional codes with inclusion rules, exclusions and evidence anchors while keeping interpretation distinct from the source material.
No public results yet
Audit existing survey items, response options and branching for leading wording, measurement ambiguity and avoidable respondent burden.
Oldest first · one level of replies
Sign in to join the discussion. Share what you learned or made with this prompt.
No comments yet
Be the first to share how this prompt worked for you.