ajps-rebuttal

R&R Rebuttal (ajps-rebuttal)

An AJPS R&R is a real opportunity — most accepted papers earn it through revision. The response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision converges, and it carries two AJPS-specific constraints: the resubmission stays double-blind (the response memorandum is uploaded anonymized), and any new analysis must keep the deposited code re-runnable, because a third-party verifier will re-run it at acceptance (see ajps-replication-and-verification).

When to trigger

• An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response memorandum
• Reviewers disagree and you must reconcile their demands
• A reviewer requests analyses that would change the paper's claims
• Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which points are decisive — solve those first; the editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
2. One point-by-point memorandum, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the new text/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (theory, design, evidence). A well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the paper.
4. Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When R2 wants the opposite of R3, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
5. Protect the contribution and the identification. Add robustness and clarifications; resist changes that dilute the generalizable claim or weaken the design that earned the R&R.
6. Keep it anonymous and re-runnable. The revised manuscript stays double-blind (no acknowledgments/funding/first-person self-cites added back in), the memorandum is uploaded anonymized, and every new exhibit must be regenerated by the master script so verification at acceptance will pass.

Response-memorandum format

For each reviewer comment:

> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly. Keep the memorandum anonymized.

Concede-or-rebut decision table

Comment type	Default move	AJPS-specific caution
Editor's decisive point	Solve first, visibly	The editor adjudicates; address before reviewer minutiae
Identification challenge	Add a check or sensitivity bound	Do not weaken the design that earned the R&R
New analysis requested	Run it and script it	Keep the package re-runnable for verification at acceptance

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

R2 calls the close-election RD "selection-on-observables in disguise." The response concedes the framing gap, adds a density test (illustrative p = 0.62) and a donut-hole spec to the SI, and cites the new line: "Response: we now report a manipulation test and bandwidth grid (SI Table A4)." R3 instead wants the RD dropped for matching; the memo reconciles openly, retains the RD because the running variable is continuous, adds matching as a robustness check, and explains the tradeoff. Both new exhibits regenerate from the master script, so verification still passes.

Referee-pushback patterns and the venue-specific fix

• "You ignored my third comment." -> Quote every comment verbatim and answer it; silence reads as non-compliance to an AJPS editor.
• "The revision re-identifies the authors." -> Strip re-added acknowledgments/funding, keep self-cites third-person; the resubmission and memo stay anonymized, and new tables must regenerate from the script.

Calibration anchor: an AJPS R&R is a genuine path to acceptance and verification is re-run at acceptance, so every new number must stay reproducible — confirm current wording against the journal's guidelines.

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
• Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic just to please a reviewer
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
• "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
• De-anonymizing the resubmission (adding acknowledgments, funding, or first-person self-cites back)
• Adding analyses that the deposited code can no longer reproduce (verification will fail at acceptance)

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of claim/identification? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package】resubmission still blind; new exhibits re-runnable? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — double-blind resubmission and verification-at-acceptance policy