Rebuttal & Response Letter (aejpol-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• An AEJ: Policy R&R or major-revision letter arrived and you must plan the response
• Referee reports conflict and you need an editor-anchored prioritization
• You need to convert reports into a revision plan plus a point-by-point letter
• A resubmission needs a cover note showing how every comment was addressed

How to run an AEJ: Policy revision

The editor's letter is the contract — prioritize what the editor emphasizes, then address every referee point. At AEJ: Policy the recurring high-stakes asks are about (a) the credibility of the causal claim, (b) the welfare / policy reading, and (c) robustness and reproducibility. Treat the response as a chance to make the policy contribution more prominent, not just to patch holes.

Structure of the response

1. Editor-first summary. Open the letter with a short paragraph naming the 2–3 changes that address the editor's main concerns, and how the paper is now a stronger policy contribution.
2. Point-by-point, per referee. Quote each comment; respond with what you changed, where (section/table/figure), and the result. Concede where the referee is right; defend with evidence where they are not — politely and with a specific exhibit.
3. A "what's new" map. A table mapping each major comment to the revision so the editor can verify coverage at a glance.

AEJ: Policy-specific response moves

• "Not a policy paper" / "so what": strengthen the policy question in the abstract/intro and add or sharpen the welfare/cost-benefit reading (aejpol-theory-model); do not just add caveats.
• Identification doubts: add the heterogeneity-robust estimator, the honest-DID bound, or the density/first-stage diagnostic into the main text and reference it in the letter.
• Welfare hand-waving: derive the sufficient statistic / MVPF explicitly and propagate uncertainty.
• Reproducibility flagged: confirm the AEA-compliant package and restricted-data path are ready (aejpol-replication-package).
• Conflicting referees: state the conflict, follow the editor's steer, and where you cannot satisfy both, explain the trade-off transparently.

Tone and discipline

Respectful, specific, evidence-led. Every "we agree" is followed by a concrete change; every "we respectfully disagree" is followed by an exhibit or a citation. Keep claims calibrated — over-defending invites a second round.

Checklist

• [ ] Editor's main concerns identified and addressed first in the letter
• [ ] Every referee comment answered point-by-point with section/exhibit references
• [ ] Concessions made where warranted; pushback backed by specific evidence
• [ ] Identification / robustness additions placed in the main text, not buried
• [ ] Welfare/policy reading strengthened, not just caveated
• [ ] Reproducibility package and restricted-data path confirmed ready
• [ ] A comment→revision map included; revised manuscript carries the front matter (single-blind)

Anti-patterns

• Answering the easy referee points and dodging the editor's central concern
• Defending a contested identification choice with rhetoric instead of a new diagnostic
• Adding caveats to dodge a "no policy point" critique instead of strengthening the welfare reading
• Burying the new robustness result in an appendix and hoping the referee notices
• A combative tone that turns a revisable R&R into a rejection
• Treating the response letter as adversarial rather than a good-faith revision record

Per-comment response template

For each referee point, write three short moves so the editor can verify coverage quickly:

1. Restate the comment in one neutral sentence (quote the key phrase).
2. Act — "We agree and have [change], now in [Section/Table/Figure]," or "We respectfully disagree; [exhibit/citation] shows [evidence]."
3. Point — name the exact location in the revised manuscript where the change lives.

Keep the agree:disagree ratio honest — concede the genuine points fully and reserve disagreement for places where you have a concrete exhibit. A letter that disagrees with everything reads as defensive and invites a second round.

Worked vignette (illustrative)

An R&R on a transfer-program paper: the editor stresses "the welfare interpretation is not convincing"; Referee 1 doubts parallel trends; Referee 2 wants external validity. Plan: (1) letter opens with the new MVPF derivation answering the editor; (2) R1 → add honest-DID bounds and flat leads to Section 4, cite in the letter; (3) R2 → add heterogeneity by state characteristics and a scope paragraph. A comment→revision table closes the letter. The contribution reads as a sharper policy answer than the original.

Output format

【Editor's main concern】+ the 2–3 changes that address it (letter opener)
【Per-referee responses】[comment → change → location → result]
【Concede vs. defend】list, each with its evidence
【Welfare/policy strengthening】what was added (not just caveated)
【Reproducibility】package + restricted-data path confirmed? [Y/N]
【Comment→revision map】attached? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via AEA system