Use when writing the response to an American Anthropologist (AA) revise-and-resubmit. AA uses anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, often with cross-subfield reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident and the ethnographic contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new evidence.
SkillScore96Maintained
Automatic
◆Writing & Editing pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 23 without it.
Without skill61%
With skill96%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Explains that omitting responses reads as non-compliance.
Specifies Research Exchange as the final resubmission portal.
Cites the ethics of care expected in constructive peer review.
and 7 more in the full report
8 fixed14 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+35 pp
Tokens
+28%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-22%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v122 of 23 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 8 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 8
Prompt
An author has completed all revisions and point-by-point responses for an American Anthropologist R&R. What is the final operational step for submitting the revised package?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Identifies Research Exchange as the submission portal for resubmitting the revision.
Missed
Passed
case-17 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md90 linessingle file
R&R Rebuttal (amanthro-rebuttal)
An AA revise-and-resubmit is the normal route to acceptance — treat it as an invitation, not a near
miss. But the paper still must satisfy expert, sometimes cross-subfield reviewers and the editor.
The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while protecting the four-field contribution
and the integrity of the ethnography and ethics.
When to trigger
An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
Reviewers disagree with each other (often across subfields) and you must reconcile them
A reviewer requests changes that would alter your interpretation or expose interlocutors
Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision
Strategy
Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which points are decisive and
adjudicates among reviewers. Solve those first and headline them in the cover note.
One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never
skip one — silence reads as non-compliance, even under an ethics of care.
Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: say where you revised (new text/section),
or push back respectfully with a reason (ethnographic evidence, theoretical logic, or ethics).
A well-argued disagreement is respected more than a hollow concession that flattens the argument.
Reconcile cross-subfield reviewers openly. When an archaeologist and a sociocultural reviewer
want opposite things, choose a principled path, explain the tradeoff, and answer each in that
tradition's idiom (AA's four-field pluralism).
Protect the contribution and the people in it. Add evidence and clarification, but resist changes
that dilute the four-field claim — and never add detail that would de-anonymize or endanger
interlocutors to satisfy a reviewer (see amanthro-transparency-and-data).
Match the ethics of care. Keep the tone collegial and non-defensive; AA's review culture is
constructive, and a gracious, substantive letter helps.
Response-letter format
For each reviewer comment:
> [Quoted reviewer comment]
Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Use when writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.