qje-rebuttal¶
Structures the revision and response letter when a QJE decision letter arrives (R&R or reject-and-resubmit); routes re-analysis to the relevant qje-* skill rather than redoing it.
Stages:
revision-editing
Rebuttal & Revision (qje-rebuttal)¶
When to trigger¶
- A QJE decision letter arrived: revise-and-resubmit, or a conditional/major revision
- You have referee reports and need a response strategy
- You are unsure how to prioritize conflicting referee demands
- The revised manuscript exists and you need to draft the response letter
QJE reality: few rounds, high stakes¶
At an unconditional acceptance rate of only ~1-4%, an R&R from one of QJE's five Harvard-based Editors is a rare and valuable signal — treat it as a near-final opportunity and address everything substantive in this round rather than negotiating across many. The handling Editor's letter is the contract: at QJE a single Editor (not a co-editor + AE layer) owns the decision, so that letter tells you which referee points are binding and which are optional. Read it first and let it set priorities.
Triage protocol¶
- Decode the Editor. The Editor's letter ranks the issues. A point the Editor underscores is binding; a point only one referee raised and the Editor ignored is lower priority (but still answer it).
- Classify every comment. For each referee point, tag it: fundamental (must add analysis), clarification (rewrite/explain), or disagreement (you will push back, politely, with evidence).
- Sequence the work. Do the analysis first (route fundamentals to
qje-identification/qje-robustness/qje-theory-model), update exhibits, then write the letter — never write the letter before the manuscript reflects the changes. - Never pick a fight you can win with a robustness check. If a check settles it, run the check; reserve disagreement for points where the referee is genuinely mistaken.
Response-letter structure¶
- Opening: thank the Editor and referees; summarize the main changes in a short paragraph.
- Point-by-point: quote each comment, then respond. Each response = what you did + where in the revised paper it now appears (section/table/figure/page).
- Disagreements: state the referee's point fairly, then give the evidence-based reason you respectfully differ; offer a compromise (e.g., added to the appendix) where possible.
- Tone: gracious, concrete, never defensive. Show the referees made the paper better.
- Change log: optionally include a brief summary of all changes up front for the Editor's convenience.
Checklist¶
- Editor's priorities decoded and used to rank responses
- Every referee comment classified (fundamental / clarification / disagreement)
- All fundamental requests resolved with actual new analysis, not promises
- Each response cites the exact location of the change in the revised paper
- Disagreements are evidence-based, fair, and offer a compromise
- Tone is gracious and concrete throughout
- Revised manuscript updated before the letter was written
- No new over-claiming introduced while answering reviewers
Anti-patterns¶
- Writing the response letter before the manuscript actually reflects the changes
- Promising future work instead of doing the analysis this round (rounds are scarce at ~1-4% acceptance)
- Arguing with a referee where a quick robustness check would settle it
- Defensive or curt tone; treating reports as attacks rather than help
- Answering only the easy points and hand-waving the hard one the Editor flagged
- Vague responses ("we have addressed this") with no location in the paper
Output format¶
Text Only
【Decision】R&R / major / conditional
【Editor's binding points】[...]
【Comment classification】fundamental: [...] / clarification: [...] / disagreement: [...]
【Analysis routed to】qje-identification / qje-robustness / qje-theory-model (as needed)
【Letter status】point-by-point with locations? [Y/N]
【Tone check】gracious + concrete? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit the single PDF via Editorial Express (qje-submission for file checks)