From jf-skills
Structures response letters and revision plans for Journal of Finance revise-and-resubmit submissions. Guides triaging editor and referee points, keeping within page limits, and routing robustness to the Internet Appendix.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jf-skills:jf-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- A JF **revise-and-resubmit (R&R)** has arrived and you must respond
With ~5% acceptance and ~33–45% desk rejection (afajof.org editor reports, accessed 2026-05-30), an R&R from JF is precious. The path to acceptance runs through the handling editor (currently the team led by Antoinette Schoar (MIT) — verify the masthead): the editor's letter, not any single referee, defines what acceptance requires. Address the editor's framing first and most fully.
jf-internet-appendix) and say so explicitly — this matches JF norms and keeps the body lean.jf-submission); near acceptance the code is verified before publication.A JF R&R bundles the editor's letter with two or three referee reports of unequal weight. Sort every point before drafting:
| Point type | Weight | Response discipline |
|---|---|---|
| Editor's synthesis / central concern | Highest — defines acceptance | Answer first, most fully, in the body |
| Referee point the editor echoed | High | Treat as a near-condition; change, don't argue |
| Referee point on identification/robustness | High | New tests, mostly routed to the Internet Appendix |
| Referee suggestion the editor did not endorse | Medium | Address respectfully; disagree with evidence if warranted |
| Minor / stylistic | Low | Fix quietly; note in the per-point table |
The recurring JF failure mode: optimizing for the most vocal referee while underweighting the editor — who, not any referee, decides.
Illustrative. The editor writes: "I am convinced the effect is real, but the staggered-DID estimator is the open question; please satisfy Referee 2." The disciplined response opens to the editor: "Following your central concern, we re-estimate with Callaway–Sant'Anna; the leverage effect moves from 4.2 to 3.1 pp (illustrative) and holds; Internet Appendix Table IA.VII holds the full comparison." Then a per-referee table logs every point with its change and location. New tables go to the IA so the body stays under 60 pages; code is staged for the Data Editor.
| Residual pushback on resubmission | JF-specific fix |
|---|---|
| "You answered R1 but not my main point" (editor) | Open the letter with the editor's concern, resolved in the body |
| "The new robustness bloated the paper" | Route it to the Internet Appendix; cite, don't inline |
| "Where exactly did this change?" | Give section/table/IA location and quote the revised text |
【Editor's central concern + how met】...
【All referee points tabulated?】yes / no
【New robustness → Internet Appendix + cited?】yes / no
【Body ≤60 pp?】yes / no
【Code/disclosure ready for Data Editor?】yes / no
【Next step】resubmit via the AFA portal
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jf-skillsDrafts structured response letters for JFE revise-and-resubmits: cover note, point-by-point replies, and revision map. Use after revisions are done.
Plans strategy and structure for a JFQA revise-and-resubmit response, including point-by-point replies, new robustness/identification evidence, and code-archive readiness.
Structures a point-by-point revise-and-resubmit response for the Journal of Corporate Finance, reconciling conflicting reviewer demands with a revision plan and traceable responses.