SMR Rebuttal
Use this after a decision letter. SMR revisions are won by treating each reviewer point as a concrete,
auditable deliverable — at a methods journal, "we have clarified this" without a new derivation,
simulation cell, or exhibit rarely persuades.
SMR's response format
SMR expects authors to copy each reviewer comment verbatim and respond beneath it (检索于 2026-06；
以官网为准). Build the response document accordingly:
- One block per comment: the verbatim comment, your response, and the exact change (section,
table, equation, or line) that implements it.
- Group nothing silently — every comment gets its own visible block, even if the answer is "see our
response to Reviewer 2, point 3."
- Keep a changelog at the top summarizing the major revisions so the editor sees the arc quickly.
Classify each comment, then assign a deliverable
| Comment type |
Deliverable that satisfies an SMR reviewer |
| "Property is asserted, not proved" |
a derivation or a clearly labeled argument (smr-derivation-and-properties) |
| "Simulation is too narrow / strawman" |
new DGP cells or competitors (smr-simulation-studies) |
| "Does the method matter in practice?" |
strengthen or add the empirical illustration (smr-empirical-illustration) |
| "Can I run this?" |
release/clean the package + reproducibility (smr-software-and-reproducibility) |
| "Unclear contribution / overclaim" |
tighten the contribution sentence (smr-method-contribution, smr-writing-style) |
| "Already exists elsewhere" |
a precedent response (smr-literature-positioning) — concede or differentiate |
Map every comment to one of these before writing; an answer with no concrete deliverable is the
response most likely to draw a second-round rejection.
Handling the hard cases
-
Disagreement: you may push back, but do it with evidence — a derivation, a simulation cell, or a
citation — not assertion. Concede the framing even when you keep the conclusion.
-
A demanded analysis you think is wrong: run it anyway and show why it does not change the
conclusion; a refusal reads as evasion.
-
Precedent claims: if the reviewer is right that the method exists, say so and re-scope the
contribution honestly; if they are wrong, give the precise difference from the cited work.
-
Scope pushback ("this is an application"): re-foreground the methodological takeaway and the
travel beyond the example — the
smr-topic-selection argument.
Track the revision clock
- Note the deadline and whether it is a major or minor revision; request an extension early if a new
simulation or derivation needs real time.
- Keep the revised manuscript fully anonymized for re-review and update the availability
statement and AI disclosure if materials changed.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
-
"We have clarified this" with no new derivation, exhibit, or text pointer.
-
Silent grouping of comments instead of the verbatim-block format.
-
Assertion over evidence in disagreements.
-
Refusing a requested analysis instead of running it and explaining the null.
-
Defending an overclaim the reviewers correctly flagged, rather than re-scoping.
-
Deanonymized revision files sent for re-review.
Output format
[Decision] reject / major / minor / conditional accept
[Response format] verbatim-block per comment? yes/no
[Comment ledger] <comment -> deliverable -> where implemented>
[Hardest point] <the comment most likely to sink the revision> + plan
[Anonymization/disclosure] revision anonymized; availability + AI updated? yes/no
[Next SMR skill] smr-submission (for the revised resubmission)
