R&R Rebuttal (geb-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- A GEB revision decision has arrived
- Referees question novelty, proof correctness, equilibrium selection, experiment design, or fit
- You need a response letter that respects the Editor-in-Charge process
Triage categories
-
Theory correctness: missing proof step, equilibrium existence/uniqueness,
refinement, comparative statics, boundary case, or counterexample.
-
Novelty and positioning: the paper may be a corollary, special case, or
incremental extension of known game-theory results.
-
Experimental / numerical evidence: underpowered experiment, unclear
treatment, robustness, code, or simulation design.
-
Exposition: notation, game form, timing, payoff matrix, assumptions, or
abstract length.
-
Fit: contribution to game theory is not visible enough.
Response strategy
- Start with the editor's synthesis, then handle referee comments in order.
- For proof comments, add the missing lemma/proof or narrow the theorem.
- For novelty comments, compare theorem-by-theorem with the closest prior result.
- For experimental comments, add power, robustness, treatment checks, or clearer
implementation details.
- Keep the contribution framed as advancing game theory or its applications, not
merely adding a new empirical setting.
Response paragraph pattern
We thank the referee for identifying this issue. We now revise [theorem/model/
experiment] by [change]. The new material appears in [section/table/appendix].
It addresses the concern because [logic tied to equilibrium/proof/design].
Who reads the GEB response
- The Editor in Charge — one of the seven Editors, publicly known to you,
with final decision authority — decides whether the revision returns to
referees or is settled directly. Open the letter with a half-page summary
written for that person: which objections were resolved, and how the main
theorem or finding changed (or did not).
- The Advisory Editor who recommended the decision remains anonymous, as do
referees; never guess identities or address evaluators by name.
- Under GEB's single-anonymized model, a referee may be an author of the
nearest prior result. Meet novelty objections with theorem-level precision,
not dismissal — that reader likely knows the prior proof better than you do.
- If a revision weakens or renames a theorem, flag it prominently; an Editor
in Charge who finds a silently narrowed result late in the letter stops
trusting the rest of it.
Worked micro-example: a novelty objection
Referee: "Proposition 2 appears to be a special case of [prior theorem]."
-
Weak reply: "Our setting differs, so the results are not comparable." —
asserts without demonstrating, and reads as evasion to a specialist.
-
Strong reply: "Proposition 2 is not implied by [prior theorem]: their
argument uses quasi-concavity of payoffs (their Assumption A2), which our
class violates (new Example 3). Remark 4 now states exactly which step of
their proof fails in our environment, and Corollary 1 cites their result
where the two genuinely overlap." — concedes the true overlap, isolates the
delta, and gives manuscript locations for both.
Revision-package mechanics (Editorial Manager)
Response pass for Games and Economic Behavior
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.
-
Do the pass: Separate editor-order changes from referee-specific changes; answer each major objection with manuscript edits plus a short evidence citation, not tone.
-
Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
-
Sibling guard: compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
-
Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
[Decision] major revision / minor revision
[Editor priority] ...
[Theory changes] ...
[Experiment/numerics changes] ...
[Positioning changes] ...
[Next step] revise manuscript + response letter
