jde-rebuttal

Rebuttal & R&R Strategy (jde-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• A JDE R&R or revise decision arrived and you need a response-letter strategy
• Referee reports conflict and you must triage which changes to make
• You are on the short-paper track and have a single, time-boxed revision round
• You need to decide what to concede, what to defend, and what to add

Read the decision first

JDE review is single-anonymized (referees know your identity), so responses are professional and direct; there is no anonymity to preserve on your side. Map the editor's letter against the referee reports: the editor's priorities are binding even when a referee raised a point in passing. Identify the two or three concerns that actually gate acceptance — typically identification credibility, robustness, and the development contribution — and lead with those.

Track-specific timing

• Full-length R&R: standard multi-round revision; referees usually see the resubmission. Expect to satisfy the editor across rounds, so address every point even if briefly.
• Short-paper (limited-revision) track: you get a single revision round of 4 weeks, and resubmissions are not returned to referees — the editor decides. This is decisive: the revision must fully resolve the editor's conditions in one pass, because there is no second bite and no referee re-review. Do not defer fixes "for a later round" that will not exist.

Response-letter structure

• Cover summary: thank the editor and referees; state the 2-3 substantive changes that most improve the paper; flag where you respectfully disagree and why.
• Point-by-point: quote each comment, then respond. For each: what you changed, where (section/table/figure), and the new result — or a reasoned, evidence-backed defense if you did not change it.
• New analyses: add the robustness, heterogeneity, attrition, or identification checks referees requested; if a check is infeasible (restricted data, power), say so transparently with an alternative.
• Replication: note that the data/code package reflects every new result — JDE can request it, so keep it in sync (see jde-replication-and-data-policy).

Tactics

• Concede cheap, defensible points quickly to build credibility for the points you defend.
• For identification objections, add falsification/placebo evidence rather than rhetoric.
• Keep claims calibrated; development referees reward honest scope and punish overreach.
• Track the submission cap (three per 12 months) so a resubmission does not collide with other submissions.

Common JDE referee objections and the venue-specific fix

Referee objection	The fix that lands at JDE
"External validity — this is one context, one program"	State the LATE/population precisely; show what travels via mechanism, not bravado
"Spillovers contaminate your control group"	Add a SUTVA/spillover check (distance rings, treated-neighbor share), bound the bias
"PAP deviations are not flagged"	Add a deviation table: pre-specified vs realized, with reasons
"SEs ignore clustered randomization"	Re-cluster at the randomization level; few clusters → wild-cluster bootstrap or RI
"Subgroup result looks mined"	Re-run as pre-specified-only, apply Romano–Wolf, demote the rest to exploratory
"Attrition is differential and unaddressed"	Report attrition by arm, add Lee bounds, show robustness to the bound

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

Hypothetical: a full-length R&R on a cluster-randomized agricultural-extension trial. Editor's letter flags three gates — clustering, spillovers, and a heterogeneity claim.

• Concede + fix (cheap): re-cluster at the village level; the ITT moves from +0.21 to +0.19 SD and the CI widens but stays positive (illustrative) — concede the original SEs, show the result survives.
• Defend with evidence: for spillovers, add a treated-neighbor-share regression showing near-zero leakage; defend the control group rather than just asserting SUTVA.
• Demote: move the gender-interaction claim to "exploratory, MHT-adjusted," conceding it was not pre-registered.
• Letter line: "Comment 2 (clustering): re-estimated at the randomization level (Table 3, col. 2); ITT = 0.19 SD, 95% CI 0.05–0.33; the package reflects this change." Numbers illustrative.

Anti-patterns

• Defending everything and conceding nothing — reads as defensive
• On the short-paper track, leaving a gap "for the next round" that does not exist
• Adding prose where a referee asked for a robustness check
• A response letter that does not point to the exact revised location of each change
• Letting the replication package drift out of sync with new results

Output format

【Decision type】full-length R&R / short-paper limited revision / reject-with-encouragement
【Editor's gating concerns】[top 2-3]
【Concede】[points + fix]
【Defend (with evidence)】[points + argument]
【New analyses】[robustness/heterogeneity/identification added]
【Replication in sync?】[Y/N]
【Round constraint】limited-revision short-paper route? [Y/N]