ppsych-revision

Revision & Response for a Perspective (ppsych-revision)

When to trigger

• A PoPS decision letter (major/minor revision, or reject-and-resubmit) arrived
• Reviewers flagged missing literatures, imbalance, mischaracterization, or "reads like a list"
• The editor asked to broaden, sharpen, or rebalance the argument, or to strengthen open science
• You need a point-by-point response for a perspective, not a primary paper

Categories of review feedback (and how to answer each)

PoPS revision asks cluster differently from primary-research asks. Triage every point into one bucket:

| Feedback type | Typical phrasing | Response move |

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

| Scope / superordinate message | "this reads like a single study / one paradigm" | sharpen the broad claim; show the cross-area payoff (ppsych-topic-selection) |

| Coverage gap | "you omit the X literature / area Y" | almost always concede and integrate — place it in the right framework cell; re-run saturation (ppsych-literature-synthesis) |

| Balance / fairness | "this slights camp Z / over-cites the author / one-sided reform" | steelman the slighted side; re-audit self-citation and reform calibration (ppsych-comprehensiveness-and-balance) |

| Appraisal accuracy | "you mischaracterize study/finding W" | correct precisely; reviewed authors often referee — fix exactly |

| Framework / argument | "this is an annotated bibliography" | strengthen or make explicit the spine (ppsych-organizing-framework); don't just reorder |

| Accessibility / provocation | "a non-specialist can't follow §4" / "what's the take-home?" | add intuition, define jargon, state the claim earlier (ppsych-writing-style) |

| Open science | "deposit the coding data / preregister the protocol" | deposit and cite; report the registration link (ppsych-transparency-and-reproducibility) |

Writing the response letter

• Point-by-point, quote-then-respond. Reproduce each comment, then state the change and where it lives (section/page/table).
• Coverage asks: concede and integrate. A missing literature is a real defect in a broad review; adding it strengthens the piece. The omitting author may be the referee who named it.
• Balance asks: show the steelman. Demonstrate the revised text states the other side at its strongest — and, for reform pieces, that criticized practices are steelmanned and claims are calibrated to evidence.
• Accuracy asks: fix exactly. Mischaracterizing a reviewed author who is your referee is the fastest route to a hostile second round; correct the wording precisely.
• Open-science asks: act, don't promise. Deposit the data/code and report the DOI/registration link in the letter; do not defer to acceptance.
• Disagree rarely and respectfully. If an ask would break the spine or bloat the piece beyond concision, explain the trade-off and propose an alternative, ideally pre-cleared with the editor.
• Track every addition's ripple. Adding a literature can shift the argument's center of gravity; after each integration re-check that the framework cells, the exhibits, and the balance audit still hold, and that the piece stays concise.

Checklist

• [ ] Every comment triaged into a bucket (scope / coverage / balance / appraisal / framework / accessibility / open-science)
• [ ] Coverage gaps conceded and integrated into the right framework cell; saturation re-run
• [ ] Balance complaints answered by demonstrable steelmanning + self-citation / reform-calibration re-audit
• [ ] Mischaracterizations corrected precisely (reviewed authors may be the referees)
• [ ] "Annotated bibliography" asks answered by a stronger/explicit spine, not reordering
• [ ] Accessibility fixes add intuition / define jargon / state the claim earlier
• [ ] Open-science asks acted on (deposited + cited + registration link), not promised
• [ ] Point-by-point letter: quote-then-respond, with section/page/table locations
• [ ] Comprehensiveness + balance + concision re-checked after all additions

Anti-patterns

• Defending an omission rather than adding the missing literature (a coverage gap is a real defect)
• Answering a balance complaint with assertions of fairness instead of revised, steelmanned text
• Dismissing or re-mischaracterizing a reviewed author who is likely your referee
• "Fixing" an annotated-bibliography critique by shuffling paragraphs without imposing a spine
• Promising open data/code "on acceptance" instead of depositing it now
• Bloating scope to satisfy every "also cover…" until the perspective loses its spine and concision
• Trying to satisfy two contradictory reviewers instead of asking the editor to adjudicate

Output format

【Triage】each comment bucketed (scope/coverage/balance/appraisal/framework/accessibility/open-science)? Y/N
【Coverage gaps】conceded + integrated into framework cells; saturation re-run? Y/N
【Balance】steelman shown in revised text; self-citation + reform calibration re-audited? Y/N
【Appraisal fixes】mischaracterizations corrected precisely? Y/N
【Framework asks】spine strengthened/made explicit (not reordered)? Y/N
【Accessibility】intuition added; claim stated earlier? Y/N
【Open science】deposits done + cited; registration link reported? Y/N · N/A
【Letter】point-by-point, quote-then-respond, with locations? Y/N
【Next step】→ ppsych-submission (re-submit the revised perspective)