Unlike journals where revisions are textual, an ExpEcon R&R often requires collecting new data — an added control treatment, more matching groups for power, or a robustness condition. Plan the response around that fact.
| Referee request | Default response | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| "Add a control treatment that isolates X" | usually run it — it is the cleanest answer | new sessions |
| "Underpowered / wrong inference unit" | re-analyze at group level; add sessions if MDE not met | re-analysis ± data |
| "Could be deception / demand effects" | prove non-deception per ESA definition, or re-run | possibly fatal |
| "Comprehension/confusion confound" | report pass rates; re-analyze excluding failers | re-analysis |
| "Why not JEBO/GEB?" | sharpen the methods contribution in framing | text only |
| "More structural estimation" | add if it identifies a parameter; else decline with reason | analysis |
A referee says a coordination-game result "might be a demand effect — subjects guessed the hypothesis." Three moves: (1) note the abstract/neutral framing already used (no leading language — quote the instructions); (2) report the post-experiment belief question showing subjects did not infer the hypothesis; (3) if still unconvinced, add a treatment with an obfuscated cover task and show the effect persists (illustrative: 0.7 SD, unchanged). The letter leads with these three actions, not with "the referee is mistaken," and updates the instructions and data in the repository to match.
An added treatment is not just bench cost — it is a timeline the editors will weigh. Before committing, estimate: sessions needed for the new arm at the group-level power you must hit, lab availability, IRB amendment time, and re-deposit effort. If a requested treatment is genuinely infeasible, say so explicitly and offer the strongest available substitute (a re-analysis, a bound, or a focused robustness condition) rather than a vague promise. Editors respond far better to "we ran 10 of the 12 sessions you asked for; here is why 12 was infeasible and what the 10 show" than to silence or hand-waving.
A subtle ExpEcon trap: a referee asks for a new analysis or treatment, you run it, and your "pre-registered" framing quietly erodes because the new work was not pre-specified. Protect the distinction in the revision. Anything you add at the referee's request is, by definition, not part of the original confirmatory plan — label it as referee-requested and exploratory, and keep the original pre-registered primary test reported exactly as filed. For a substantial new treatment, consider pre-registering its analysis before collecting it, and say so in the letter. Editors trust authors who keep the confirmatory/exploratory line clean under revision pressure; blurring it to make new results look pre-planned is the fastest way to lose that trust.
A flagship reject is not the end of the experiment — the data are clean and the design is real. Triage the report for what is fixable (positioning, power, a missing control) versus fatal at this venue (a deception concern that cannot be removed, or a contribution the editors judge topical rather than methodological). If the core is sound but the contribution was read as too narrow, JESA is the natural next ESA home (replications, null results, shorter design notes). If a referee's deception read is correct, the only path is a re-designed follow-up. Do not resubmit the same paper to the flagship after a reject without a substantive change to the dimension that sank it.
【Journal】Experimental Economics (ESA method flagship)
【Skill】expecon-rebuttal
【Decision type】R&R / reject-resubmit / conditional accept
【Triage】new-data / re-analysis / clarification / disagreement (counts)
【Gate items】deception / incentive concerns — resolution
【New-data items】treatment/sessions to run or justified omission
【Letter form】point-by-point, quote-then-respond, locations cited? [Y/N]
【Package sync】repository updated to revision? [Y/N]
【Next step】re-run expecon-identification/robustness for new data → expecon-submission for resubmission