From imf-economic-review-skills
Plans and drafts a response-letter strategy for IMF Economic Review R&Rs with dual academic/policy referee panels, then hands off to imfer-submission for resubmission preflight.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/imf-economic-review-skills:imfer-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- An IMFER R&R (major or minor) arrived and you must turn referee reports into a revision plan
IMFER R&Rs usually carry the dual signature of the pool: an academic referee pressing on identification and frontier novelty, and a reader pressing on policy relevance and program realism. Start from the editor's letter — it ranks the points and signals which are deal-breakers. The classic IMFER revision arc is: shore up the cross-country design, add the composition/common-shock checks the referees expect, and sharpen (or appropriately bound) the policy implication without overreaching. Treat the academic and policy concerns as two tracks that must both be closed.
| Referee ask | Response move |
|---|---|
| "Re-do with a heterogeneity-robust estimator" | re-estimate; show the headline barely moves; report the event-study leads |
| "Show it is not driven by a few countries" | add leave-one-country-out / drop-dominant to the main paper, not just the appendix |
| "This is the global financial cycle" | add the global-cycle / US-shock control; show the result survives |
| "Policy is endogenous to the crisis" | add the instrument / narrative-timing defense; bound the causal reading |
| "The policy implication is overreached" | re-scope the implication to exactly what the design supports |
| "Inference is too narrow" | switch to Driscoll–Kraay / wild-cluster; report the new CIs |
| Two referees disagree | let the editor's ranking arbitrate; address both, flag the tension transparently |
| "Make it reproducible" | finalize the package with restricted-data access instructions |
| "Extend to more countries / a longer sample" | extend if feasible and report; if data-constrained, say so and bound external validity |
IMFER decisions, like most economics journals, carry a verdict the letter's tone encodes: a major R&R invites real engagement and usually signals the editor wants the paper if the design and policy claim can be shored up; a minor R&R means the contribution is accepted and the asks are executable; a reject-and-resubmit (rarer) means a fundamental redesign before it can re-enter. Calibrate effort to the verdict — do not under-respond to a major R&R by treating it as cosmetic, and do not over-engineer a minor R&R into a new paper the editor did not ask for. The editor's framing of the contribution, not the referee word count, is the signal.
imfer-submission)The R&R: Referee 1 (academic) wants Callaway–Sant'Anna and a leave-one-country-out; Referee 2 (policy) thinks the CFM welfare claim is overreached; the editor flags identification as the deal-breaker. The response leads with a changes table keyed to that ranking: the headline moves from −0.82 to −0.79 under the new estimator (shown), leave-one-country-out stays in [−0.9, −0.7] (new appendix table referenced), and the welfare claim is re-scoped from "CFMs are optimal" to "CFMs reduce the outflow by roughly half in the regime we study, with the optimal tax bounded at 1–3%." Both referees' tracks close; the editor's priority is addressed first.
【Journal】IMF Economic Review
【Skill】imfer-rebuttal
【Editor priorities】ranked deal-breakers: ___
【Point-by-point】[comment → change → location → result] for each
【New analyses】estimator / composition / common-shock checks run: ___
【Policy claim】re-scoped / sharpened to the evidence: ___
【Both tracks closed】academic ___ | policy ___
【Next step】imfer-submission (re-run double-blind preflight for resubmission)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin imf-economic-review-skillsPlans response-letter strategy for JIMF revision decisions, prioritizing editor-endorsed changes and guiding point-by-point rebuttals with evidence.
Anticipates objections from IMF Economic Review referees to pre-empt them in a manuscript before submission or address them in revision. Plans the defense strategy without drafting the response letter or running the submission preflight.
Plans a response letter and revision strategy for a Journal of Monetary Economics revise-and-resubmit, under the up-or-out rule where the resubmission ends in acceptance or rejection with no second R&R round.