Revision & Response Document (psychrev-rebuttal)
Write the response after the theory has actually been revised. At a theory journal a
response that argues rather than strengthens the model fails. Revise first, then document.
When to trigger
- A major/minor revision decision has arrived
- You have reviewer comments and must produce a point-by-point response
- You are tempted to defend the model rather than improve it
- You must decide which asks change the theory and which are presentation
Read the letter for the theory, not the edits
Reviewers at Psychological Review are usually proponents or critics of the rival models. Their
comments encode theoretical demands beneath the surface wording. Before drafting, classify
every comment:
| Comment encodes... |
Response strategy |
| "Your model is the same as [rival]" |
Sharpen subsumption/differentiation; show the limiting case (psychrev-contribution-framing) |
| "How do you know this prediction follows?" |
Add/strengthen the derivation (psychrev-argument-development) |
| "Couldn't a simpler account do this?" |
Add the head-to-head on a diagnostic phenomenon |
| "Is this parameter identifiable?" |
Add parameter-recovery simulation (psychrev-boundary-conditions) |
| "The model explains too much" |
State scope and a breakdown regime |
| "What would falsify it?" |
Add a risky novel prediction |
| "This reads as empirical / out of scope" |
Reframe so data only constrain; re-establish fit |
Building the response document
-
Open with the substantive changes, not gratitude boilerplate: a short paragraph naming
the two or three ways the theory is now stronger (new derivation, identifiability analysis,
scope statement, head-to-head comparison).
-
Point-by-point, quoting each comment, then: what you changed, where (section/figure/eq.
number), and — only where you genuinely disagree — a respectful, evidence-based rebuttal.
-
Show the theory changed. For a theory journal, "we clarified the wording" rarely
suffices when the comment was about the model; point to the new derivation, simulation, or
scope statement.
-
Concede on your own terms. Where a reviewer is right that the model cannot do Y, fold Y
into the boundary conditions as a stated limit rather than over-reaching to cover it.
-
Disagree carefully. You may push back on a rival-modeler reviewer, but only with a
derivation or a diagnostic comparison — never with assertion. Make the editor's adjudication easy.
Tone and discipline
- Respectful, specific, and concrete — every claim of "we revised" carries a location.
- Never dismissive of the rival models the reviewers represent.
- Track changes / a clearly marked revised manuscript accompanies the response (per portal).
- If two reviewers conflict, surface the conflict for the editor and state your principled choice.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Arguing the model is fine instead of strengthening it (fatal at a theory journal)
- "We thank the reviewer" boilerplate with no located change
- Defending against a rival-modeler reviewer by assertion rather than derivation
- Over-reaching to cover a phenomenon a reviewer rightly flagged, instead of bounding it
- Cosmetic edits in response to a substantive theoretical objection
- Ignoring a reviewer conflict and hoping the editor does not notice
Output format
【Summary of strengthening】[2–3 ways the theory is now stronger]
【Point-by-point】[comment → change made → location | or reasoned rebuttal with derivation]
【Theory changes】[new derivations / simulations / scope statements added]
【Concessions】[phenomena now bounded out, on our terms]
【Editor notes】[any reviewer conflicts surfaced + principled choice]
【Next step】psychrev-submission (resubmission preflight)
