Use this skill whenever a user needs help writing, evaluating, or responding to peer reviews for anthropological research. Triggers include: any mention of "peer review," "review a manuscript," "write a review," "reviewer comments," "respond to reviewers," "rebuttal letter," "revision plan," "manuscript evaluation," "assess this paper," "reviewing for [journal name]," "R&R response," "how to review," "reviewer feedback," "revise and resubmit." Covers writing constructive peer reviews for anthropology journals, evaluating manuscripts from the reviewer's perspective, and responding to reviewer feedback (rebuttal letters, revision plans). Review types: invited review, desk review, blind review, open review. Do NOT use for grant review panels (use grant-proposal skill) or student work feedback (use teaching-materials skill). This skill handles peer review as a professional scholarly practice and revision as a strategic engagement with reviewer critique.
Write constructive peer reviews, evaluate manuscripts, and respond to reviewer feedback for anthropology journals. The skill treats peer review as a professional scholarly practice with ethical obligations: reviewers owe authors a careful reading, specific feedback, and actionable suggestions; authors owe reviewers genuine engagement with critique, even when disagreeing. Both sides of the review process are arguments about how to make scholarship stronger.
A good review does three things simultaneously: (a) evaluates whether the manuscript makes a defensible contribution to anthropological knowledge; (b) identifies specific, actionable paths to improvement; and (c) treats the author as a colleague whose intellectual project deserves respectful engagement. A good revision response does three things: (a) demonstrates that every reviewer point was read and considered; (b) shows evidence of substantive change where change was warranted; and (c) provides reasoned justification where the author disagrees, supported by evidence or argument.
| Task | Reference |
|---|---|
| Review structure, evaluation criteria, constructive framework, discipline-specific assessment | Read references/review-writing-guide.md |
| Rebuttal letters, point-by-point responses, revision plans, handling contradictory feedback | Read references/revision-response-guide.md |
Determine the entry point:
Before generating any content, collect these inputs:
Required:
Important but can be inferred: 4. Review type. Invited review, desk review, blind review, or open review. Blind review requires attention to anonymity in the review text. Open review may allow more collegial tone. 5. Reviewer expertise relative to manuscript. Is the reviewer an expert in the subfield, a methodological specialist, or a generalist? This affects what the reviewer can and should comment on. 6. Decision context (for responses). What was the editorial decision? Minor revisions, major revisions/R&R, or conditional accept? This determines the scope and urgency of the response.
Helpful but not required:
references/review-writing-guide.md when the user is
writing or evaluating a review. This contains the review anatomy, evaluation
criteria, constructive framework, and discipline-specific assessment guidance.references/revision-response-guide.md when the user is
responding to reviewer feedback, writing a rebuttal letter, or creating a
revision plan. This contains point-by-point response format, tone
calibration, and strategies for contradictory feedback.Follow the appropriate framework from the loaded reference files:
For reviews:
For rebuttal letters and revision responses:
For revision plans:
Produce one or more deliverables depending on user needs:
Before presenting output, verify:
| Failure mode | Prevention |
|---|---|
| Vague praise without specifics ("interesting and well-written") | Name what is interesting and why; identify specific passages or arguments that work well |
| Destructive criticism without remediation ("the argument fails") | For every identified problem, suggest at least one concrete path to improvement |
| Ignoring positive contributions in the rush to critique | Lead with a genuine assessment of what the manuscript contributes before turning to concerns |
| Rebuttal that skips uncomfortable reviewer points | Require explicit response to every numbered or substantive point, even if the response is "we respectfully disagree because..." |
| Confusing "I would have done it differently" with actual flaws | Distinguish between the reviewer's preferences and genuine problems in the manuscript's internal logic |
| Review that demands a different paper than the one submitted | Evaluate the manuscript on its own terms: does it achieve what it sets out to do? Flag only where the chosen approach creates identifiable problems |
Example 1: Writing a constructive review of a cultural anthropology article
Input: "I've been asked to review an article for American Ethnologist about digital kinship practices among transnational Filipino families. It uses 14 months of multi-sited ethnography across Manila and Los Angeles. I'm a media anthropologist with some expertise in digital studies but not in Filipino communities. How should I structure my review?"
Output approach:
Example 2: Responding to mixed R&R feedback with contradictory reviewers
Input: "I got an R&R from Cultural Anthropology. Reviewer 1 says I need more theoretical framing and wants me to engage with Povinelli and Berlant. Reviewer 2 says the paper is already too theory-heavy and the ethnography gets lost. The editor's letter says to address both reviewers' concerns. How do I handle this?"
Output approach:
Example 3: Developmental evaluation of a graduate student's first submission
Input: "My advisee just submitted their first article to the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute and got a reject with encouragement to revise and resubmit elsewhere. The reviewers said the ethnography is strong but the argument isn't clear and the literature review is too broad. Can you help me think about how to advise them on the reviews and plan a revision for resubmission to another journal?"
Output approach: