jaar-revision-and-response

Revision & Response (jaar-revision-and-response)

A JAAR R&R is a genuine opening at a journal that rejects ~90%. But the readers may come from very different corners of the study of religion (a textual scholar, a theorist, an ethnographer), and they will ask for different things. The response letter must answer each report on its own terms while keeping the argument and its broad significance intact — and the revision stays double-blind.

When to trigger

• An R&R / revise decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
• Readers' reports pull in different methodological directions
• A reader asks for engagement with a literature or source base that would reshape the article
• Writing the cover note to the editor

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor distills which points are decisive; address those first. The editor — not any single reader — adjudicates.
2. Point-by-point, every comment. Quote or paraphrase each reader comment, then respond; do not skip any, even ones you decline.
3. Concede or reply with reasons. Where a reader is right, revise and say where (section/page); where you disagree, make the scholarly case (evidence, method, or framing) — a well-argued reply beats a capitulation that weakens the argument.
4. Reconcile cross-method readers. When a textual reader and a theorist want different emphases, choose a principled path that keeps the essay coherent in its own method, and explain the tradeoff to the editor rather than trying to be every kind of article at once.
5. Protect broad significance. Many R&Rs push toward more specialist detail; add it where it strengthens the argument, but do not let the article slide back into a subfield-only piece (the very thing JAAR screens against). Keep the field-level stakes front and center.
6. Keep it submittable. Maintain anonymity in the revised main document (third-person self-cites); keep in-text author-date citations; respect the word budget as notes grow.

Response-letter format

For each reader comment:

> [Quoted / paraphrased reader comment]

Response: [What we revised / why we respectfully disagree, with the scholarly reason].
Change: [Section/page where the revision appears].

Open with a brief note to the editor summarizing the main changes and how the revision preserves the article's broad significance; group by reader; end each entry with the change location.

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or quietly merging away a comment
• Capitulating to a request that erodes the argument or its field-level significance
• Over-specializing the revision until it no longer reads for the whole field
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward readers
• Letting anonymity or in-text citation style lapse in the revised file

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reader comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs reply】each tagged with scholarly reason + change location
【Cross-method conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Broad significance protected】not narrowed to a subfield? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + in-text citations intact】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Manuscript Central

Worked vignette: reconciling a textual reader and a theorist

The comparative-offerings essay (from jaar-argument-development) earns an R&R. Reader A, a textual historian, wants far more on the shrine's hagiographic sources; Reader B, a theorist, wants the "transactional contract" claim grounded in gift theory and pressed harder. Satisfying both literally would double the length and blur the argument.

• Editor's letter as rubric. The editor singles out two decisive points — tighten the tertium comparationis and keep the field-level payoff visible — and those lead the response.
• Reconcile, don't merge. The author adds a compact source paragraph for Reader A but declines to turn the essay into a hagiography study, telling the editor that the comparison, not either site's textual depth, is the contribution; for Reader B she adopts gift theory yet resists "press harder" into a universal law, defending the bounded scope on reflexivity grounds (jaar-theory-and-method).
• Protect broad significance. Net additions stay inside the word budget; the field-level stakes remain in the intro and conclusion rather than dissolving into shrine particulars.

Hedged calibration: JAAR does not publish a fixed R&R word limit or a required response-letter template; the point-by-point convention and the "editor adjudicates" model here reflect common practice — confirm specific resubmission instructions against the editor's decision letter and the journal's current submission guidelines, and keep the revised main document anonymized (third-person self-cites, in-text author-date) on resubmission.

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model and decision categories