Helps organize reviewer comments and generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter that maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line). Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses.
name: response-letter
description: Helps organize reviewer comments and generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter that maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line). Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses.
license: MIT
author: aipoch
You received peer-review comments and need a point-by-point response letter for journal resubmission.
You must clearly map every manuscript change to a specific location (page/paragraph/line) for reviewers or editors.
You need a consistent, professional response structure across multiple reviewers and revision rounds.
You are coordinating an internal review and want a standardized change log and execution checklist.
You need a Word (.docx) deliverable rather than a table-based response format.
Key Features
Consolidates, merges, and numbers reviewer comments across reviewers.
Separates major vs. minor comments to prioritize revision work.
Produces a fixed, repeatable response layout per comment:
Reviewer’s Comment
Response
Changes in Text
Requires explicit change-location marking (page/paragraph/line) and version labeling.
Supports quoting revised manuscript text (e.g., blockquotes) to make changes auditable.
Generates a Word (.docx) response letter plus a modification/execution checklist.
Adds an Overview for the Editor section summarizing major revisions at the beginning.
Enforces a professional, polite tone throughout.
Dependencies
Microsoft Word .docx output (Word-compatible document generation)
Reference format guide: references/guide.md
Example Usage
Input:
- Manuscript (tracked version or clean version + change notes)
- Reviewer comments (all reviewers, all rounds)
- Current manuscript pagination/line numbering scheme (if available)
Steps:
1) Organize comments
- Merge all reviewer comments into a single list.
- Number them sequentially (e.g., R1-1, R1-2…; R2-1…).
- Tag each as Major or Minor.
2) Draft "Overview for the Editor"
- Write one concise paragraph summarizing the major revisions and their rationale.
3) Write point-by-point responses
For each numbered comment, output:
- Reviewer’s Comment: (verbatim or lightly cleaned for clarity)
- Response: (polite, direct, addresses the request)
- Changes in Text: (what changed + where)
4) Mark locations and quote revised text
- Provide page/paragraph/line for each change.
- Specify additions/deletions.
- Quote the revised paragraph when the main text is modified.
5) Generate deliverables
- Export the full response letter as a Word document (.docx).
- Produce a modification/execution checklist to verify all changes are applied.
Output (Word .docx structure):
- Title / Manuscript info (optional)
- Overview for the Editor
- Responses to Reviewer 1
- R1-1
- R1-2
...
- Responses to Reviewer 2
...
- Modification / Execution Checklist
Implementation Details
Comment normalization and numbering
Merge comments from all sources; assign stable IDs (e.g., R{reviewer}-{index}) to preserve traceability across revision rounds.
Major vs. minor classification
Major: requests affecting study design, analyses, interpretation, or core claims.