R&R Revision & Response (jar-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You received a JAR revise-and-resubmit and must plan the revision
• You need to draft the point-by-point response to the Senior Editor and referees
• Referees disagree and you must triage which concerns are binding
• New analyses change tables and the data-and-code package needs updating

Sequence: revise first, then write the response

Do the analytical work before drafting the letter. A JAR R&R turns on whether you have actually strengthened identification, the economic channel, and measurement — not on rhetorical skill. The Senior Editor's letter is the binding map: it tells you which referee points are first-order (and must be resolved) versus second-order (where a reasoned reply may suffice). Address the editor's priorities first.

Triage the referee points

• First-order (must resolve): endogeneity/identification threats, an unidentified channel, fragile or invalid construct measurement, sample-construction concerns. These usually require new analyses (a cleaner setting, additional diagnostics, alternative proxies, falsification tests).
• Second-order (resolve or reason): additional robustness, exposition, framing, extra citations. Implement where cheap; otherwise explain clearly.
• Conflicting referees: do not whipsaw the paper. State the trade-off and follow the Senior Editor's steer; note where you sided with one referee and why.

Draft the response letter

• One point, one response. Quote each comment, then give your response and point to the exact change (section, table number, new analysis).
• Show the new evidence. For identification/measurement concerns, present the new table or diagnostic in the letter (or a response appendix), not just a promise.
• Be candid about limits. Where a concern cannot be fully resolved, say what the design can and cannot identify and add the scope condition to the paper.
• Respectful and specific. Thank referees, concede valid points, and defend with evidence — never dismiss.

Update the deliverables JAR requires

Re-run the data-and-code package so it regenerates all revised tables and figures from raw extracts; update the README for new screens, vintages, and analyses. Keep the manuscript double-anonymized and consistent (variable names, hypothesis labels, table numbers) after the revision. If this is a Registered Report Stage 2, confirm the analyses match the pre-approved Stage 1 protocol and explain any pre-specified deviations.

Checklist

• [ ] Revision analyses completed before drafting the response
• [ ] Editor's first-order concerns identified and resolved
• [ ] Each referee comment quoted with a specific, change-anchored response
• [ ] New identification/measurement evidence shown, not promised
• [ ] Conflicting referees reconciled per the editor's steer
• [ ] Data-and-code package regenerates all revised exhibits; README updated
• [ ] Manuscript still anonymized and internally consistent
• [ ] (If RR Stage 2) analyses match the approved Stage 1 protocol

Anti-patterns

• Writing the letter before doing the work.
• Treating all referees equally instead of following the editor's priorities.
• Promising robustness instead of showing it.
• Cosmetic responses to first-order identification concerns.
• Letting the posted code drift out of sync with the revised tables.

Output format

【Editor first-order asks】[...] — resolved by ...
【Referee triage】R1/R2/R3 first-order vs second-order
【New analyses done】identification / measurement / falsification ...
【Response letter】per-point, change-anchored draft status
【Conflicts reconciled】editor's steer followed where ...
【Data-and-code】package regenerates revised exhibits? updated?
【Next step】resubmit via Research Exchange (jar-submission for preflight)

Resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official JAR/Chicago Booth/Wiley URLs (accessed 2026-06-01)
• ../../resources/external_tools.md — analysis and reproducibility tooling for revision work