nature-response

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Nature Reviewer Response Skill

Nature审稿意见回复技能

Use this skill to convert editor decision letters, reviewer comments, author notes, or draft rebuttals into an auditable point-by-point response package for manuscript revisions.

The response letter is an editor-facing verification document. The goal is to show that every reviewer concern has been understood, addressed, and mapped to a concrete manuscript change, justified scientific response, or unresolved author action.

使用本技能可将编辑决定信、审稿意见、作者笔记或反驳草稿转化为可审核的稿件修订逐点回复包。

回复信是面向编辑的验证文档，目标是展示已理解并回应每一条审稿人关切，且对应到具体的稿件修改、合理的科学回应或未解决的作者待办事项。

Default stance

默认原则

Preserve each reviewer comment faithfully before responding.
Every reviewer concern must be answered, cross-referenced, or explicitly marked as unresolved.
Map every response to manuscript evidence, a revision location, a justified disagreement, or
```
AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED
```
.
Do not invent experiments, analyses, citations, line numbers, figure panels, supplementary materials, editor instructions, reviewer identities, or manuscript changes.
Prefer concise, evidence-linked replies over long defensive explanations.
When disagreeing, acknowledge the concern first, then give a scientific or scope-based reason.
When a reviewer misunderstood the manuscript, first consider whether the manuscript presentation caused the misunderstanding.
Treat rebuttal letters as potentially public review artifacts; write with professional tone and traceability.

忠实保留每条审稿意见后再进行回应。
每一条审稿人关切都必须得到答复、交叉引用或明确标记为未解决。
将每一项回应对应到稿件证据、修订位置、合理的不同意见或
```
AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED
```
。
不得虚构实验、分析、引用、行号、图版、补充材料、编辑指示、审稿人身份或稿件修改内容。
优先选择简洁、关联证据的回复，而非冗长的辩解性说明。
当存在不同意见时，先认可关切点，再给出基于科学或研究范围的理由。
当审稿人误解稿件内容时，首先考虑是否是稿件表述导致了该误解。
将反驳信视为可能公开的评审文件；撰写时保持专业语气并确保可追溯性。

Accepted inputs

接受的输入

The skill may receive:

editor decision letter
reviewer comments
previous response draft
manuscript change notes
tracked-change summary
line or page numbers
figure, table, and supplement list
author notes in Chinese or English
journal name and article type

If reviewer boundaries or comment segmentation are ambiguous, flag the ambiguity instead of inventing reviewer structure.

本技能可接收以下内容：

编辑决定信
审稿意见
过往回复草稿
稿件修改笔记
修订跟踪摘要
行号或页码
图表、表格及补充材料清单
中英文作者笔记
期刊名称及文章类型

若审稿人界限或意见划分模糊，需标记该模糊点，而非自行编造审稿人结构。

Workflow

工作流程

Identify task mode and input readiness:
```
draft
```
,
```
audit
```
,
```
revise
```
,
```
triage-only
```
, or
```
appeal-like
```
.
Identify decision type: minor revision, major revision, revise-and-resubmit, transfer after review, or unclear.
Extract editor instructions first and assign IDs such as
```
E.1
```
, then split reviewer comments with IDs such as
```
R1.1
```
,
```
R1.2
```
, and
```
R2.1
```
.
Classify each item by category, severity, action label, missing input, readiness state, and risk.
Create a response strategy summary before drafting prose.
Draft responses using preserved reviewer comments unless the mode is
```
triage-only
```
or
```
appeal-like
```
.
Map each claimed change to manuscript location, figure, table, supplement, citation, or explicit placeholder.
Flag missing author input rather than fabricating details.
Run QA for completeness, traceability, factuality, tone, and unresolved risk.

Return the response package with package readiness:

ready_to_submit

draft_with_placeholders

needs_author_input

, or

blocked

识别任务模式和输入就绪状态：
```
draft
```
（撰写）、
```
audit
```
（审核）、
```
revise
```
（修改）、
```
triage-only
```
（仅分类）或
```
appeal-like
```
（类似申诉）。
识别决定类型：小修、大修、修改后重投、评审后转刊或不明确。
先提取编辑指示并分配ID，如
```
E.1
```
，再拆分审稿意见并分配ID，如
```
R1.1
```
、
```
R1.2
```
、
```
R2.1
```
。
按类别、严重程度、行动标签、缺失输入、就绪状态和风险对每一项进行分类。
在撰写正文前创建回复策略摘要。
保留审稿意见原文进行回复撰写，除非任务模式为
```
triage-only
```
或
```
appeal-like
```
。
将每一项声称的修改对应到稿件位置、图表、表格、补充材料、引用或明确的占位符。
标记缺失的作者输入，而非编造细节。
针对完整性、可追溯性、真实性、语气和未解决风险进行QA检查。
返回回复包，并标注包就绪状态：
```
ready_to_submit
```
（可提交）、
```
draft_with_placeholders
```
（带占位符的草稿）、
```
needs_author_input
```
（需作者输入）或
```
blocked
```
（受阻）。

Output format

输出格式

Unless the user asks for another format, return:

text

Response strategy summary
- Decision type:
- Overall posture:
- Major risks:
- Suggested ordering:

Comment-response tracker
| ID | Reviewer concern | Type | Severity | Proposed action | Missing author input |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Draft point-by-point response letter
[editor-readable English response]

Manuscript change checklist
- [specific manuscript changes or placeholders]

Missing information / risk flags
- [specific unresolved items or "None"]

中文核对
- [when the user writes in Chinese; otherwise omit unless useful]

除非用户要求其他格式，否则返回以下内容：

text

回复策略摘要
- 决定类型:
- 整体立场:
- 主要风险:
- 建议排序:

意见-回复跟踪表
| ID | 审稿人关切 | 类型 | 严重程度 | 拟采取行动 | 缺失作者输入 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

逐点回复信草稿
[编辑可读的英文回复]

稿件修改清单
- [具体稿件修改内容或占位符]

缺失信息/风险标记
- [具体未解决事项或"无"]

中文核对
- [当用户使用中文时添加；否则除非有用否则省略]

Red lines

红线规则

Do not ignore any reviewer comment.
Do not rephrase reviewer comments in a way that changes their meaning.
Do not claim a revision was made unless the user supplied it.
Do not invent line numbers, figure panels, citations, statistical results, or supplementary items.
Do not use hostile or accusatory language.
Do not cite time, money, or convenience as the primary reason for not doing a requested experiment.
Do not hide limitations.
Do not generate an appeal letter as the default path. Route appeal-like cases separately.
Do not generate a cover letter in the MVP. Mention it only as adjacent revision-package material when relevant.

不得忽略任何审稿意见。
不得通过改写审稿意见改变其原意。
除非用户提供相关信息，否则不得声称已完成某项修订。
不得虚构行号、图版、引用、统计结果或补充材料。
不得使用敌对或指责性语言。
不得将时间、资金或便利性作为不执行要求实验的主要理由。
不得隐瞒局限性。
不得默认生成申诉信。类似申诉的情况需单独处理。
MVP版本中不得生成投稿信。仅当相关时提及它作为修订包的附属材料。

Related files

File	Open when
references/intake-and-routing.md	Before drafting, to identify task mode, minimum inputs, editor IDs, readiness state, and clarifying-question need
references/source-basis.md	You need source hierarchy, rule provenance, or policy-vs-advice boundaries
references/response-structure.md	You need the response package format or point-by-point letter anatomy
references/comment-taxonomy.md	You need to classify reviewer comments by category and severity
references/action-mapping.md	You need action labels, tracker fields, and missing-input states
references/tone-and-stance.md	You need recommended language, forbidden phrasing, or disagreement tone
references/chinese-author-alignment.md	The user writes in Chinese or provides Chinese author notes
references/difficult-cases.md	The comments involve impossible experiments, factual errors, conflicting reviewers, citations, statistics, compliance, transfer, or appeal-like cases
references/qa-checklist.md	Before finalizing an output or auditing a draft response

文件	打开时机
references/intake-and-routing.md	撰写前，用于识别任务模式、最低输入要求、编辑ID、就绪状态及是否需要澄清问题
references/source-basis.md	需要了解来源层级、规则出处或政策与建议界限时
references/response-structure.md	需要了解回复包格式或逐点回复信结构时
references/comment-taxonomy.md	需要按类别和严重程度分类审稿意见时
references/action-mapping.md	需要行动标签、跟踪表字段及缺失输入状态时
references/tone-and-stance.md	需要推荐语言、禁用表述或不同意见语气指导时
references/chinese-author-alignment.md	用户使用中文或提供中文作者笔记时
references/difficult-cases.md	意见涉及不可能完成的实验、事实错误、审稿人意见冲突、引用、统计、合规、转刊或类似申诉的情况时
references/qa-checklist.md	定稿前或审核回复草稿时

Source hierarchy

来源优先级

Use sources in this order:

Target journal instructions and the editor decision letter.
Nature / Nature Portfolio / Springer Nature revision and peer-review process guidance.
Springer Nature editorial advice on rebuttal letters.
Local manuscript facts supplied by the author.

If a policy detail may have changed, verify the current journal page before giving final submission advice.

按以下顺序使用来源：

目标期刊的指南和编辑决定信。
Nature / Nature Portfolio / Springer Nature的修订和同行评审流程指南。
Springer Nature关于反驳信的编辑建议。
作者提供的稿件本地事实。

若某一政策细节可能已变更，在给出最终提交建议前需核实期刊当前页面内容。