Revision & Rebuttal (agsy-revision-and-rebuttal)

A revise decision at AgSy is a real chance — but systems reviewers tend to press on the model (calibration, evaluation, sensitivity, uncertainty) and the trade-off / decision framing. The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision converges. Reviewers are not anonymous to you on their side (single anonymized), but keep the tone professional and evidence-based.

When to trigger

• A major/minor revision decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
• Reviewers disagree (e.g., one wants more scenarios, another wants a simpler model)
• A reviewer requests additional evaluation, sensitivity, or uncertainty analysis
• Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which points are decisive — often model evaluation, uncertainty, or systems framing. Solve those first; the editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
2. One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the new text/figure/table number, or the new sensitivity/uncertainty run), or push back respectfully with a systems reason (boundary, model structure, data, or scale). A well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the analysis.
4. Strengthen the model, don't just defend it. Most AgSy revisions improve with an added independent evaluation, a sensitivity / uncertainty analysis, or a clearer trade-off exhibit. Offer these proactively where reviewers raise doubt.
5. Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When R1 wants more complexity and R2 wants parsimony, say so, choose a principled path (justified by the question and the decision relevance), and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
6. Protect the systems contribution. Resist changes that turn the paper back into a single-factor study or dilute the trade-off/decision message. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
7. Keep the package in sync. Update the deposited data, code, and model so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see agsy-reproducibility-and-data-policy).

Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree, with a systems reason].
Change: [Section/page/figure-table number; new evaluation/sensitivity run where relevant].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.

Worked micro-example: two conflicting reviewers (illustrative)

A crop–livestock simulation gets a major revision. R1 wants three more management scenarios; R2 wants a simpler model and doubts the calibration. The response resolves the conflict openly rather than splitting the difference:

• To R2 (decisive — the editor flagged calibration): added an independent evaluation on held-out 2018–2021 (NSE = 0.71, illustrative), reported in new Table 3; kept the model complexity because the herd–manure–rotation feedback is the contribution and a simpler model cannot represent it.
• To R1: added two of the three scenarios that change the trade-off; explained that the third duplicates an existing one and would not shift the Pareto front.
• To the editor: a cover note states the chosen path — strengthen evaluation, add targeted scenarios, retain the systems structure — and why it serves the decision-relevance the paper claims.

Referee pushback → the AgSy-specific fix

• "Model not validated." → Add the held-out evaluation and report it as a new exhibit; cite the table.
• "Make the model simpler." → Defend the load-bearing interaction; show what a simpler model loses, rather than conceding a change that collapses the systems framing.
• "Scenarios are not policy-relevant." → Re-specify scenarios around an actual decision and name the actor.

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
• Adding scenarios/complexity that quietly contradict the original conclusion without acknowledging it
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
• "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
• Letting the revised manuscript or new exhibits drift out of sync with the deposited package
• Conceding a change that collapses the systems framing just to please one reviewer

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Model strengthened】added evaluation/sensitivity/uncertainty where pressed? [Y/N]
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】systems framing + trade-off intact? [Y/N]
【Package updated】data/code/model in sync? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, reviewer count, editor-decision policy