jpam-rebuttal

R&R Rebuttal (jpam-rebuttal)

A JPAM R&R is a strong signal, but at a cross-disciplinary venue the response letter must satisfy two kinds of reviewer at once — one focused on identification and one on policy relevance — while the editor adjudicates. Move every reviewer toward yes, protect the credibly identified result from dilution, and keep the deposited replication materials in sync with the revised exhibits.

When to trigger

• An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
• An identification reviewer and a policy reviewer want different (sometimes opposite) things
• A reviewer requests analyses that would change the paper's claims or its cost-benefit conclusion
• Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which points are decisive; solve those first. The editor adjudicates disagreements between the identification and policy reviewers.
2. One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Silence reads as non-compliance.
3. Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: say what you did (with the new text/table number) or push back respectfully with a reason (design, data, or theory). A well-argued disagreement is respected more than a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
4. Reconcile the two reviewer types openly. When the identification reviewer wants more robustness and the policy reviewer wants a bolder takeaway, do not satisfy one by overclaiming to the other — add the robustness and keep the implication calibrated, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
5. Protect the credible core. Add robustness, cost-benefit sensitivity, and scope conditions; resist changes that push the policy claim beyond what the design identifies.
6. Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-blind) and update the replication package so every new table/figure remains reproducible (see jpam-transparency-and-data).

Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly.

Triage table for a JPAM R&R

Comment signal	Who owns the call	Default move in the response
Editor flags it as decisive	editor	solve first, headline it in the cover note
Identification reviewer wants more robustness	author	run it; show the result is not knife-edge
Policy reviewer wants a bolder/broader claim	author	extend the implication only as far as the design + scope conditions allow
Two reviewers want opposite things	editor	pick a principled path, explain the tradeoff openly
Reviewer questions the cost-benefit assumptions	author	add sensitivity analysis; do not present a point ratio as certain

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
• Overclaiming to satisfy the policy reviewer, breaking the identification reviewer's trust
• Capitulating to a request that weakens the design just to please a reviewer
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward referees
• Letting revised exhibits drift out of sync with the deposited replication package

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Two-reviewer reconciliation】identification vs policy resolved + explained? [Y/N]
【Core protected】implication still calibrated to the design? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Wiley Research Exchange

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — decision categories and review-model guardrails
• ../../../shared-resources/empirical-methods/reviewer-objection-checklist.md — pre-empt the identification objections before they recur