PaperRevisionKit

A polished LaTeX toolkit for journal revision packages.

Build reproducible cover letters and point-by-point reviewer responses with reviewer-wise source files, automatic numbering, highlighted manuscript changes, and a clean PDF-first workflow.

PDF Preview · 中文说明 · Quick Start · Cover Letter Only

Preview

Write structured LaTeX responses. Compile a submission-ready revision package.

Why PaperRevisionKit?

Journal revision packages often become messy before the science is even the hard part:

• reviewer comments and author replies drift out of sync
• manual numbering breaks after one round of edits
• cover letters, editor replies, reviewer responses, highlighted changes, and references scatter across files
• final PDFs can look improvised instead of submission-ready

PaperRevisionKit keeps those pieces in one reproducible LaTeX workflow.

Need	What PaperRevisionKit provides
One response package	Cover letter, editor response, reviewer responses, changes, and references in one PDF
Clean organization	Each reviewer can live in a separate file under RevisionKit/Reviewers/
Automatic numbering	Comments and responses are numbered consistently
Major / Minor grouping	Group comments by severity or topic
Highlighted changes	Show manuscript edits in a dedicated box
Standard bibliography	Compatible with natbib + bibtex
Easy customization	Tune colors, boxes, aliases, and reviewer labels in RevisionKit/revisionkit.sty

Quick Start

git clone https://github.com/zzaiyan/PaperRevisionKit.git
cd PaperRevisionKit/RevisionKit
latexmk -pdf revision_response.tex

The files you will usually edit are:

RevisionKit/revision_response.tex
RevisionKit/cover_letter.tex
RevisionKit/Reviewers/Meta.tex
RevisionKit/Reviewers/R1.tex
RevisionKit/Reviewers/R2.tex
RevisionKit/Reviewers/R3.tex
RevisionKit/literature.bib

Workflow

Project Structure

.
|-- assets/
|   |-- banner.png
|   |-- preview.png
|   `-- workflow.svg
|-- RevisionKit/
|   |-- Reviewers/
|   |   |-- Meta.tex
|   |   |-- R1.tex
|   |   |-- R2.tex
|   |   `-- R3.tex
|   |-- cover_letter.tex
|   |-- literature.bib
|   |-- revision_response.tex
|   `-- revisionkit.sty
|-- scripts/
|   |-- generate_preview.py
|   `-- generate_workflow.py
|-- README.md
`-- README_zh.md

Cover Letter Only

The simplest cover-letter-only version is already built into RevisionKit/revision_response.tex. Keep this line:

\input{cover_letter.tex}

Then comment out the full response package block below it:

% ------------------------------------------------------------------
% Full response package.
% For a cover-letter-only PDF, comment out the block below.
% ------------------------------------------------------------------
\setcounter{page}{0}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\fancyfoot[R]{\thepage\ / \pageref{LastPage}}
\fancyfoot[L]{Response Letter for \manuscript}
\fancyfoot[C]{\ }

\input{Reviewers/Meta.tex}
\input{Reviewers/R1.tex}
\input{Reviewers/R2.tex}
\input{Reviewers/R3.tex}

\fancyhead{}
\bibliography{literature}
% ------------------------------------------------------------------
% End of full response package block.
% ------------------------------------------------------------------

Compile the same entry file from inside RevisionKit/:

cd RevisionKit
latexmk -pdf revision_response.tex

Commands at a Glance

Command / Environment	Purpose
\editor[title]	Start the editor or meta-review section
\reviewer[alias]	Start a reviewer section with an optional alias
\setcommentprefix{Major}	Start a named comment group and reset numbering
\resetcommentprefix	Clear the active group and reset numbering
generalcomment	Box for unnumbered overall comments
generalresponse	Response to an overall editor/meta-review comment
revcomment	Box for an automatically numbered reviewer comment
revresponse	Response to the current reviewer comment
changes	Highlighted box for manuscript edits

Examples

Group reviewer comments

\reviewer[R2]

\setcommentprefix{Major}

\begin{revcomment}
Please strengthen the baseline comparison.
\end{revcomment}

\begin{revresponse}
We added two new baselines and updated Table II.
\end{revresponse}

Highlight manuscript changes

\begin{revresponse}
We clarified the experimental setup as requested.

\begin{changes}
We added a new paragraph in Section IV-B defining the evaluation metric
and included a worked example for edge cases.
\end{changes}
\end{revresponse}

Cross-reference comments

\begin{revcomment}\label{comment:metric}
The evaluation metric is not fully specified.
\end{revcomment}

As noted in Comment \ref{comment:metric}, we now define hard negatives explicitly.

Customization

You can keep the default appearance or tune the style after loading revisionkit.

Recommended color palette:

\definecolor{colorcommentbg}{HTML}{F3F6F8}
\definecolor{colorcommentframe}{HTML}{2563EB}
\definecolor{colorchangebg}{HTML}{E0F2FE}
\definecolor{colorchangetext}{HTML}{1E293B}

Style principles:

• Keep reviewer comments and author responses visually distinct
• Use blue / cyan tints for highlighted manuscript changes
• Preserve an academic tone instead of decorative flourish
• Avoid adding heavy dependencies unless they clearly improve the output

Acknowledgment

This project is adapted from Karl-Ludwig Besser's Overleaf template and further refined into a more complete open-source toolkit for academic revision workflows.

License

This repository is licensed under the MIT License.