Peer Review Response Assistant
A reviewer asks: "How were outliers defined and excluded?" With Licklider, the answer is not a sentence reconstructed from memory. It is grounded in the recorded exclusion history, preprocessing summaries, and current export drafts for the figure in question.
STEP 1 - The Pitfall: Revision Letters Written Without Evidence
Peer review revision letters are typically written weeks after the original submission and months after the analysis. When a reviewer asks a detailed statistical question, the researcher must reconstruct the answer from the manuscript, raw data, and whatever notes were kept at the time.
- Vague responses to specific questions. A reviewer asks whether exclusion criteria were pre-specified, but the response cites only memory instead of the recorded exclusion history.
- Inconsistent additional analyses. A requested sensitivity analysis can drift away from the original preprocessing and disclosure state unless the same recorded context is reused.
- Missed opportunities to cite analysis evidence. Transparency Trail already contains structured material for many reviewer questions, but it only helps if the response draft points back to those records.
STEP 2 - Journal Requirement
Major journals expect point-by-point response letters that address each reviewer comment individually and explain what changed in the revision. The more directly the response can point back to the supporting analysis context, the easier it is for reviewers to trust that the answer reflects the original work rather than a later reconstruction.
STEP 3 - Licklider's Solution
Input
- The reviewer comments, pasted into the revision workflow.
- The available Transparency Trail record for the original figure, including preprocessing summaries, exclusion history, N disclosure, and related analysis-family context.
- The Statistical Audit record, such as validity checks, robustness notes, and test configuration choices.
- The current Methods and legend drafts generated for the figure.
Output
- Point-by-point response drafts. Each draft acknowledges the concern, cites the relevant recorded analysis context, and explains what text or analysis changed in the revision.
- Record-backed citations. Reviewer responses can refer back to the relevant exclusion history, preprocessing summary, Methods draft, or figure state instead of relying on recollection alone.
- Sensitivity analysis consistency. When a reviewer requests an additional analysis, the response workflow can keep that run tied to the same recorded contract and preprocessing context.
- Methods change support. When the response mentions a manuscript update, Licklider can surface updated draft text for the relevant Methods or legend section.
Guard
Guard condition - Sensitivity analysis inconsistency detection: If a reviewer-requested sensitivity analysis uses different preprocessing settings than the original analysis, Licklider flags the mismatch and asks the researcher to explain or resolve it before relying on that result in the response letter.
STEP 4 - Reviewable Draft Output
Example: Response to an outlier exclusion query
Reviewer 2, Comment 3:
"The authors should clarify whether outlier exclusion criteria were defined
before or after seeing the data, and provide the specific criterion used."
Response draft:
We thank Reviewer 2 for this important question about the pre-specification
of exclusion criteria. We can confirm that outlier exclusion criteria were
defined before the primary analysis was run, as reflected in the recorded
exclusion history for this figure.
One observation in the control group met this criterion and was excluded from
the primary analysis. A sensitivity analysis including the excluded observation
was reviewed alongside the original result, and the qualitative conclusion
remained unchanged.
We have added the following sentence to the Methods draft:
"Outlier exclusion criterion was pre-specified before the primary analysis,
as recorded in the Licklider exclusion history."