A CR R&R is won by satisfying two independent expert reviewers at once (CR needs two reviews to back a Revise/Accept), usually on measurement validity, the tested mechanism, and confound control — and you must do it inside the 45-page (double-spaced, inclusive of references) limit. This skill is about that brokering and the page budget, not about inventing data.
For each reviewer, label what "convincing" means: stronger measurement (CFA, reliability, discriminant validity), a tighter mechanism (better mediation identification, manipulated mediator, bootstrap CIs), confound/CMV control, or robustness. CR's two-review rule means a single enthusiastic reviewer cannot carry the paper — identify the skeptical reviewer and make sure the revision answers them, not only the encouraging one. The editor's letter tells you which demands are load-bearing.
Every comment resolves to one of four moves; three cost pages:
| Move | When | Page-budget effect |
|---|---|---|
| Do in main text | load-bearing; the editor flagged it | costs pages — find offsets |
| Do in supplement | adds rigor but not the core argument | frees main-text pages (scales/CFA/robustness) |
| Reframe, don't add | the concern is about framing/interpretation, not missing analysis | cheap; often the best move |
| Decline, with a reason | the request breaks the design or rests on a misreading | costs nothing; must be argued, not dodged |
When you add, say what you cut or moved to stay under 45 pages — reviewers trust a stated tradeoff more than a paper that silently bloats. Most measurement and robustness detail belongs in the supplement.
| Typical CR R&R demand | Why it lands | The revision move |
|---|---|---|
| "Mediation is not convincing" | causal ordering or test is weak | manipulate/better-measure the mediator; report bootstrap CIs; hedge if cross-sectional |
| "Measurement validity unclear" | scale may not be the construct | add CFA, reliability, discriminant validity (supplement) |
| "Common-method variance" | same-survey predictor & outcome | add a CMV check; note procedural separation |
| "Alternative explanation X" | a rival is not ruled out | add the discriminating analysis or argue why the design already rules it out |
| "Effect size / interpretation missing" | stars without magnitude | report d/η²ₚ/β with CIs and substantive meaning |
When two reviewers pull opposite ways, state the tension, choose a principled path that keeps the model coherent, and explain to the editor why it serves the contribution — do not quietly side with one.
commres-transparency-and-data).Lead with a short note to the editor: the 2–3 changes that matter most, and how you kept the paper under the page limit. Then, per reviewer, a compact entry:
R# (focus: measurement / mechanism / confound / robustness)
• Comment → [paraphrase]
Action: did-in-text / did-in-supplement / reframed / declined(reason)
Where: §/p./Table/Fig./Supplement S# | Pages: +/- vs. prior draft
【Two-reviewer map】R1/R2 → focus + what "convincing" means to each (skeptical one flagged)
【Editor's load-bearing points】listed and solved first?
【Per-comment moves】in-text / supplement / reframe / decline — each with location
【Page budget】revised length ≤ 45 pp; what was cut or moved to supplement
【Conflicts】opposing demands brokered in the open, model kept coherent? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + DAS】third-person self-cites + transparency updated? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via SAGE Track
../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, two-review requirement, page limit, transparency policy