jacs-revision

Revision and Response to Reviewers (jacs-revision)

When to trigger

• A decision letter (major/minor revision, or reject-with-encouragement) arrived
• You need to triage referee comments into experiments vs edits vs rebuttals
• You are drafting the point-by-point response letter
• You must decide whether to appeal or to resubmit elsewhere

Triage the reports first

Sort every numbered comment into one bucket:

| Bucket | Action |

|--------|--------|

| Data-required | A control, extra characterization, X-ray, kinetics, or scope substrate is genuinely needed → do the experiment |

| Clarification | A real point the text/figure can fix without new data → edit + point to the change |

| Defensible disagreement | Reviewer is mistaken or asks beyond scope → rebut politely with evidence |

| Optional/over-reach | Nice-to-have; address briefly or explain why out of scope |

Address the rigor-critical comments (purity, characterization, mechanism

support, reproducibility) first — these are the ones that block acceptance at JACS.

Response-letter structure

1. Opening — thank the editor/reviewers; summarize the main changes and any new data/figures/SI added.
2. Point by point — quote each comment, then respond. For each: state the change, where it is in the revised manuscript/SI (section, figure, page), and the new evidence.
3. Quote the new text — paste added/changed passages so reviewers don't hunt.
4. Rebuttals — for disagreements, be respectful and evidence-based; concede where the reviewer improves the paper.
5. Marked manuscript — provide a tracked/colored version if requested.

Doing the new chemistry well

• New experiments must meet the same rigor bar: full characterization, controls,

CCDC deposition for any new structure, reproducible procedures (route to jacs-methods).

• New compounds → add full SI entries and spectra copies (route to jacs-supplementary).
• If a requested experiment fails or contradicts a claim, report it honestly and

adjust the claim rather than hiding it.

Tone

• Professional, specific, and complete; never dismissive even when disagreeing.
• Make the reviewer's job easy: cross-reference every change to a location.
• If a comment is based on a misreading, fix the text so the next reader can't misread it too.

JACS revision ledger

Before drafting prose, make a revision ledger that separates editor-critical chemistry from

ordinary cleanup. JACS revisions fail when a response looks complete but leaves one evidence gap

unclosed. Track each item with four fields:

| Field | JACS-specific check |

|-------|---------------------|

| Claim under review | What exact novelty, scope, mechanism, selectivity, or structure claim did the referee challenge? |

| New evidence | Which experiment, characterization trace, spectrum, crystallographic deposit, kinetic run, or control now supports it? |

| Manuscript/SI location | Main-text figure/table, scheme, or SI page where the reader can verify the fix without searching. |

| Claim adjustment | Whether the language is strengthened, narrowed, or hedged because the new evidence changed the inference. |

Use the ledger to decide whether a comment is truly answered. A reviewer asking for "more evidence"

is not answered by a paragraph; it is answered by a trace, table, structure, or explicitly narrowed

claim. Conversely, a referee misunderstanding that came from ambiguous prose should produce both a

response-letter explanation and a revised sentence in the manuscript so the same misreading cannot

recur in the next round.

Checklist

• [ ] Every numbered comment has a response — none skipped
• [ ] Rigor-critical comments addressed with real data, not words
• [ ] New compounds/structures fully characterized and deposited (CCDC)
• [ ] Each response cites the exact location of the change
• [ ] Added/changed text quoted in the letter
• [ ] Disagreements rebutted with evidence and courtesy
• [ ] Claims softened or revised where new data require it
• [ ] Marked-up manuscript prepared if requested

Anti-patterns

• Responding "we have addressed this" without saying where or how
• Adding new compounds without adding their SI characterization
• Arguing with a referee instead of fixing the ambiguous text
• Quietly dropping an inconvenient result instead of reporting it
• Over-claiming again in the revision after softening in round one
• Ignoring a rigor request and hoping the editor overrides the referee

Output format

【Decision】major / minor / reject-with-encouragement
【Triage】data-required: [...]; clarify: [...]; rebut: [...]
【New experiments】done? characterized + deposited? Y/N
【Response letter】point-by-point complete? Y/N
【Claims adjusted】[...]
【Next】resubmit via Paragon Plus → await decision

Related resources

• [jacs-methods](../jacs-methods/SKILL.md) — rigor bar for new experiments
• [jacs-supplementary](../jacs-supplementary/SKILL.md) — adding SI for new compounds
• [jacs-referee-strategy](../jacs-referee-strategy/SKILL.md) — anticipated objections to map onto the actual reports