mind-revision-and-response

Revision & Response (mind-revision-and-response)

A Mind decision that invites resubmission is a strong signal at a venue with **>800 submissions a

year**. The referees are expert and their objections are philosophical, not procedural. The task is to

answer each objection on its merits — rebut, concede-and-limit, or bite the bullet — without

diluting the thesis that earned the invitation, and to keep the resubmission **prepared for

triple-anonymous review**.

When to trigger

• A revise-and-resubmit or reject-with-encouragement arrived and you are planning the revision
• Referees disagree with each other and you must decide whom to follow
• A referee raises an objection that would, if right, change the conclusion
• Writing the response letter / cover note that accompanies the resubmission

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which objections are decisive. Solve

those first; the editor adjudicates disagreements among referees.

1. One point-by-point response, every objection addressed. Quote each referee point, then respond.

Never skip one — silence reads as evasion to an expert reader.

1. Answer philosophically, not deferentially. For each objection do one of three things and say

which: rebut (show it fails, with a reason), concede and limit (narrow the thesis so it no

longer bites), or bite the bullet (accept the cost and argue it is worth paying). A well-argued

disagreement earns more respect than a capitulation that breaks the argument.

1. Protect the thesis. Sharpen, qualify, and add the missing reply — but resist changes that hollow

out the central claim. Defend scope conditions rather than retreating into vagueness.

1. Reconcile conflicting referees openly. When one wants the opposite of another, say so, choose a

principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor. Do not silently satisfy one and ignore the other.

1. Keep it anonymous and house-style-ready. The resubmission must remain prepared for

triple-anonymous review (no self-identifying additions), line-numbered, and consistent with the

MIND house style for any accepted-stage copy (see mind-citation-and-style, mind-submission).

Response-letter format

For each referee point:

> [Quoted referee comment]

Response: [Rebut / concede-and-limit / bite-the-bullet — with the actual reason].
Change: [Section / page / line numbers where the revision appears].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by referee; end each entry with

the location of the change so the editor and referees can verify quickly.

Worked micro-example: one response entry

• Weak: "We thank the referee for this insightful comment and have revised accordingly." — no tag,

no reason, no location; an expert referee reads this as evasion dressed up as courtesy.

• Strong: "> The counterexample in §3 also refutes premise 2. — Rebut: the case trades on an

equivocation between propositional and doxastic justification; premise 2 concerns only the former.

We now flag the distinction where the premise is introduced. Change: §3.2, lines 214–228."

The strong entry names its move, gives the philosophical reason, and cites the line numbers Mind

requires on the manuscript — making verification fast for editor and referees.

Resubmission preflight

• [ ] Editor's decisive objections answered first and flagged in the summary of changes
• [ ] Every referee point quoted and tagged rebut / concede-and-limit / bite-the-bullet
• [ ] No new self-identifying material introduced by the revision (added acknowledgements,

"as I argued elsewhere…") — the triple-anonymous preparation must survive the edit

• [ ] Line numbering regenerated after revising, so locations cited in the response letter are accurate
• [ ] Still within the ~8,000-word limit after additions — cut elsewhere rather than blow the cap
• [ ] If unclear whether the resubmission interacts with the one-article-per-12-months rule, confirm

with the editorial office before uploading (需复核)

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or quietly merging away an objection without a visible response
• Capitulating to a request that breaks the argument just to placate a referee
• A defensive or dismissive tone toward expert referees
• "We thank the referee" with no actual change and no argued reason
• Adding a concession that silently undercuts the original thesis
• Reintroducing self-identifying material into the resubmission (breaks anonymity)

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every referee objection answered? [Y/N]
【Each response tagged】rebut / concede-and-limit / bite-the-bullet + change location
【Referee conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Thesis protected】no dilution of the central claim? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + line numbers preserved】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via ScholarOne

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — triple-anonymous policy, referee process, resubmission via ScholarOne