Post-Panel Rebuttal (ecopol-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You have presented at an EP conference and have two discussants' written comments to address
• You are preparing the camera-ready version that will be published next to those comments
• The panel debate surfaced points that need a fix, a concession, or a counter-argument
• A coauthor is treating discussant comments like an anonymous referee report and missing the public, side-by-side nature
• You must decide, point by point, what to change vs. what to defend in the final text

EP rebuttal is unusual: your reply is published next to the critique

At EP there is no private response-to-referees letter. The two discussants' comments are published alongside your final paper, and a summary of the panel discussion may accompany it (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). So your "rebuttal" is mostly the revised paper itself: the reader will see the critique and your paper side by side and judge whether you answered it. This reshapes strategy:

1. You cannot bury a concession in a private letter. If a discussant is right, fix it in the paper or address it openly — the reader sees both documents.
2. Defending in the text, not in correspondence. Where you disagree, the paper must contain the argument/evidence that answers the point, because there is no separate venue to make your case.
3. Tone is collegial and on the record. Discussants are named; the exchange is part of the published scholarly conversation, not an adversarial referee fight.

Triage every discussant point

For each of the two discussants, work through every substantive point with this triage; do not cherry-pick the easy ones.

Craft moves

• Map academic vs. policy comments separately. The academic discussant's points usually mean analysis changes (ecopol-identification, ecopol-robustness); the policy discussant's usually mean framing/magnitude/legibility changes.
• Strengthen the central magnitude if either discussant questioned its robustness — that is the most damaging unanswered critique given the side-by-side format.
• Address the top points in the main text, not only the appendix — the reader comparing the documents looks at the paper, not the footnotes.
• Be honest about what you did not change and why — an unanswered, visible critique is worse than a frank concession.
• Keep the policy conclusion coherent after revisions: if a fix moves the number, update the recommendation rather than leaving a stale headline.

Checklist

• Every substantive point from both discussants triaged (fix / concede / defend / scope)
• Corrections incorporated into the paper, not just promised
• Genuine disagreements answered with argument/evidence in the paper
• Central magnitude re-defended if its robustness was questioned
• Top points addressed in the main text, given the side-by-side publication
• Concessions stated openly and their impact on the conclusion bounded
• Policy bottom line still coherent after all revisions
• Tone collegial and on the record (discussants are named)

Anti-patterns

• Treating discussant comments like a private referee report you can answer in a hidden letter
• Cherry-picking the easy points and silently ignoring a hard one the reader will see next to your paper
• Defending a number a discussant credibly challenged without strengthening the robustness
• Conceding a point in correspondence but leaving the paper unchanged
• Leaving a stale policy recommendation after a revision moved the underlying estimate

Output format

【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-rebuttal
【Format reality】discussant comments published alongside the paper
【Discussant 1 (academic)】points → fix/concede/defend
【Discussant 2 (policy)】points → fix/concede/defend
【Central magnitude】re-defended if challenged? Y/N
【Open concessions】stated in text + impact bounded? Y/N
【Policy bottom line】still coherent post-revision? Y/N
【Next step】finalize camera-ready → ecopol-submission (Stage 3)