Reviewer response: disagreeing well

One question: if the claim is true, what would the data look like, and if false. If you cannot tell them apart, there is no design.

Task: A reviewer comment I disagree with.

[Before you start, do three things]
1. Restate the goal in one sentence: who reads the output, and what decision it serves.
2. If I have not given you the following, ask me. Do not assume:
   - the exact comment
   - my evidence
   - the editor's stance
   - cost of revision
3. Say how you plan to do it (at most 5 steps) and wait for my go-ahead.

[Go through each of these]
- restate the comment to show understanding
- rebut with evidence, not opinion
- revise if possible; if not, explain and offer an alternative
- stay neutral about the reviewer

[Process]
1. State the question as something falsifiable
2. Name the observation that separates true from false
3. Check whether sample, measurement and control can support it
4. List three things that could overturn it
5. State the scope

[Output]
Question, criterion, method, counter-evidence, scope.

[Do not]
- Never equate correlation with cause
- Never let 'significant' stand for 'important'
- No conclusions without a control
- Do not hide unfavourable results