jf-rebuttal

Rebuttal & Response Letter (jf-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• A JF revise-and-resubmit (R&R) has arrived and you must respond
• You are deciding whether/how to answer a reject-with-encouragement
• The revision is drafted and you need to map every editor/referee point to a change

A JF R&R is rare — treat it accordingly

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.

Structure

• To the editor: summarize the main changes and how you met the editor's synthesis of the decision.
• Per-referee, per-point: restate each point, then state exactly what changed and where (section/table/Internet Appendix), quoting revised text where useful.
• Disagreements: handle respectfully with evidence; never ignore a point — explain if you chose not to change something.

JF-specific moves

• Route substantial new robustness to the Internet Appendix (bundled at the end of the same PDF; does not count toward 60 pages; see jf-internet-appendix) and say so explicitly — this matches JF norms and keeps the body lean.
• Keep the body within the 60-page limit after revisions.
• Update disclosure and ensure replication code is ready for the Data Editor under JF's Data and Code Sharing Policy (see jf-submission); near acceptance the code is verified before publication.
• Use the cover-letter channel only for specifics (e.g., a code-exemption request) — JF does not want a generic letter.

Triaging the decision letter

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.

Worked vignette — answering an R&R on a DID paper

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.

Referee-pushback patterns and the JF-specific fix

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

Calibration anchors

• A JF R&R is scarce given the flagship's selectivity; treat it as the project's most valuable asset and over-invest in the editor's framing. How many rounds and what "conditional acceptance" requires vary; confirm from the editor's letter.

Checklist

• Editor's points ranked and addressed first
• Every referee point tabulated with response + location of change
• New robustness placed in the Internet Appendix and cross-referenced
• Body still ≤60 pages after revision
• Disagreements handled with evidence, none ignored
• Replication code / disclosure updated for the Data Editor

Anti-patterns

• Optimizing for one referee while missing the editor's central concern
• Burying or ignoring a referee point
• Adding robustness without telling referees it lives in the Internet Appendix
• Letting the revision push the body past 60 pages
• Forgetting the code-sharing obligation surfaces at acceptance

Output format

【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