Rebuttal & Revision (jebo-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- A JEBO R&R (or reject-and-resubmit) arrived and you must plan the response
- Two referees disagree and you need a coherent strategy across both
- A referee demands a new treatment / additional subjects and you must scope it
- You are deciding which points to concede and which to defend
- You need to structure the point-by-point response letter for the editor
Read the editor's letter first
The decision letter, not the referee reports, sets the priorities. The editor signals which concerns are conditions for acceptance and which are optional. With single-anonymized review, the editor can also weigh your standing and the field context. Build the revision around the editor's emphasis; address every referee point but invest most where the editor pointed.
Triage every comment
Sort each referee point into four bins before writing anything:
| Bin |
Action |
| Cheap + improves the paper |
Do it; thank the referee; show the new exhibit/text. |
| Costly but a genuine condition (new treatment, more subjects) |
Scope it, run it, report it; this is usually the make-or-break for a JEBO experimental R&R. |
| Based on a misreading |
Clarify and edit the text that allowed the misreading — never just say "the referee misunderstood." |
| Wrong / out of scope |
Push back with evidence, respectfully; concede the framing even while holding the substance. |
JEBO-specific revision moves
-
New experimental treatment / sessions. Experimental R&Rs at JEBO frequently require running an additional arm (e.g., the demand-effect control or a mechanism-separating treatment a referee asked for). Plan the timeline; report the new arm with the same rigor (pre-register the addition if feasible).
-
Mechanism vs. alternative. If a referee proposed a rival channel, add the test that separates them rather than arguing verbally.
-
Multiplicity after adding analyses. New outcomes added in revision must be folded into the MHT correction; do not quietly expand the comparison set.
-
External validity. If asked to generalize, either add a pool/field replication or bound the claim explicitly and say so.
Writing the response letter
- One document; quote each referee comment, then respond directly beneath it; point to the exact section/table/page where the change lives.
- Lead each response with the action taken ("We added Treatment D…"), not with justification.
- Keep a respectful, non-defensive tone — single-anonymized review means the relationship is not anonymous on your side.
- Summarize the major changes in a short cover note to the editor mapped to the editor's stated priorities.
- Maintain a change log so co-authors and the editor can see the manuscript's evolution.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Responding to referees while ignoring the editor's stated priorities
- "The referee misunderstood" with no edit to the text that caused it
- Verbally dismissing a rival-mechanism concern instead of running the test
- Quietly adding outcomes in revision without updating the multiplicity correction
- A defensive or curt tone toward a referee whose identity the editor knows
- Promising a robustness check in the letter but not actually adding it to the paper
Output format
【Decision】R&R / major / minor / reject-and-resubmit
【Editor's priorities】<conditions the editor emphasized>
【Comment triage】do / scope-and-run / clarify+edit / push-back (counts)
【New experiment needed?】<arm/sessions + timeline, or none>
【Mechanism-vs-alternative test added?】[Y/N]
【Response letter】quote-then-respond, action-first, locations cited [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via Editorial Manager → jebo-workflow if re-triage needed
