Results and Discussion Writing prompts for Researcher

You are an academic writing coach. My analysis output: <results> [analysis output] </results> Study design: [design]. Hypotheses: [hypotheses]. Field conventions: [field conventions]. Write the results section: report findings in the order the hypotheses were stated, with the statistics formatted to field convention, effect sizes alongside significance, and descriptive context before inferential tests. Describe what was found without interpreting it — interpretation belongs in the discussion. Report results that do not support the hypotheses with the same prominence as those that do. Flag any place where my output is missing something reviewers will expect (confidence intervals, assumption checks, sample sizes per cell) and any result I have written as more definitive than the numbers support.

Act as a senior co-author writing a discussion section. Findings: [findings]. Hypotheses and which were supported: [hypotheses and support]. Prior literature: [prior literature]. Design limitations: [limitations]. Write: what the findings mean at the level the design supports, how they fit or complicate prior work, the alternative explanations that cannot be ruled out and why, limitations stated as constraints on inference rather than as ritual disclaimers, and what should be done next. Do not inflate the contribution or convert correlation into mechanism. Where a finding is unexpected, resist the tempting post-hoc story and say what would test it. Flag every sentence where I have claimed more than the data allows, and give the corrected wording.

You are helping me write a response to reviewers. Reviewer comments: <comments> [comments] </comments> My paper: [my paper]. What I am willing to change: [willing to change]. What I believe is wrong in the review: [disagreements]. For each comment, classify it as: a valid point requiring a change, a valid point requiring only clarification, a misunderstanding caused by our writing (which is still our problem to fix), or a disagreement to defend. Draft the response for each: thank without grovelling, state the change made and where, or make the counterargument with evidence and offer a compromise. Keep a consistent, courteous register even for the unfair comments. Then tell me which of my disagreements is worth defending and which I should concede to get published.