Rebuttal & Response Letter (aejmac-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- An R&R from the editor/coeditor and referees has arrived
- A reject-with-comments where a re-submission (here or elsewhere) is being weighed
- Referee reports conflict with each other and you must reconcile them
- You need to convert a pile of macro objections into a tractable revision plan
The AEJ: Macro rebuttal posture
AEJ: Macro review is single-blind and editor/coeditor-managed; the coeditor's letter is the binding instruction set — when a referee and the coeditor disagree, follow the coeditor. The response must show that the broad-interest macro contribution survived the scrutiny and that the identified-empirical and/or quantitative-model objections are answered with new exhibits, not new prose alone. Macro referees reward a response that re-runs the decisive check and reports the (possibly changed) number honestly.
Building the response
Step 1 — Triage every comment
- Build a table: comment → required action → owning skill → main-text vs. appendix → status.
- Tag each as (a) do and show, (b) do and report even if it weakens the result, or (c) reasoned pushback. Most should be (a)/(b); reserve (c) for the few you can win on the merits.
Step 2 — Map comments to the macro skills
- Identification objections →
aejmac-identification (re-do the SVAR/LP/narrative defense).
- "Artifact of the sample/spec" →
aejmac-robustness (sample splits, method cross-check).
- Calibration / counterfactual / Lucas-critique →
aejmac-theory-model.
- "Not broad enough" / contribution unclear →
aejmac-literature-positioning / aejmac-writing-style.
- Reproducibility →
aejmac-replication-package.
Step 3 — Write the letter
-
Open with a short summary of the main changes and the headline (state if the number moved).
-
One comment, one response block: restate the comment, state what you did, point to the exact new table/figure/section, quote the changed text.
-
Be honest about movement: if a robustness check changed the estimate, report the new value and explain why the conclusion still holds (or how it is now appropriately qualified).
-
Push back sparingly and with evidence, never with attitude; concede gracefully where the referee is right.
Step 4 — Reconcile conflicts
- When referees conflict, say so explicitly, explain your choice, and tie it to the coeditor's guidance.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Answering an identification or robustness objection with words instead of a re-run and a new exhibit
- Hiding that a robustness check changed the estimate
- Treating a referee as adversary; defensiveness in tone
- Ignoring the coeditor's priorities to satisfy a referee's tangent
- A response letter that does not point to exact tables/sections
- Promising changes in the letter that are not actually in the revised manuscript
Worked vignette: the number moved (illustrative)
A referee says the monetary-policy output response is a pre-Volcker artifact. You re-estimate post-1984 (aejmac-robustness) and the peak response falls from -0.8% to -0.6% (90% bands overlapping). The strong response block: "We agree the early sample could drive the result. Re-estimating on 1984–2019 (new Table A4, Figure A3), the peak output response is -0.6% (90% band [-1.0, -0.2]), within the band of the full-sample estimate; the qualitative conclusion is unchanged and the magnitude is now reported for the modern monetary regime. We have revised the abstract and Section 4 accordingly." Honest, exhibit-backed, conclusion preserved and appropriately scoped.
Output format
【Decision type】R&R / reject-with-comments
【Triage table built】comment → action → owning skill → location → status? [Y/N]
【Coeditor letter treated as binding】conflicts reconciled to it? [Y/N]
【New exhibits for empirical/model objections】listed? [Y/N]
【Honest number movement reported】? [Y/N / NA]
【Letter style】point-by-point with exact pointers? [Y/N]
【Next step】revise manuscript; re-run aejmac-submission preflight before resubmitting
