R&R Rebuttal Strategy (jhr-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• A JHR R&R or conditional-acceptance letter arrived
• You need to structure point-by-point responses to referees and the editor
• Referees asked you to reconcile with prior estimates or add sensitivity tests
• You are unsure how much weight to give the handling editor vs. the referees

JHR-specific framing

• No fee for invited revisions — the $175 charge is initial-submission only, so resubmit cleanly without budgeting again.
• Single-anonymous review: referees know who you are; keep the tone collegial and specific, and avoid defensive or status-based appeals.
• The reconciliation requirement carries into revision. If referees ask why your estimates differ from prior published work, the expected response is comparative estimation (re-run under the prior spec/sample) plus sensitivity tests — not prose alone. JHR explicitly may require this.
• The handling editor (coeditor/associate editor) synthesizes the reports; when referees conflict, anchor your plan to the editor's letter and say so.

Response-letter structure

1. Cover note to the editor — summarize the 3-5 most substantive changes; state how you handled any conflicting referee requests.
2. Per-referee blocks — quote each comment, then respond. Use one of: Done (point to the new table/figure/section), Done differently (justify), or Respectfully push back (rare, evidence-based).
3. A reconciliation appendix — a side-by-side of your estimate vs. the prior literature's, with the bridge explained (sample, spec, period, population).
4. A change-log — every manuscript change keyed to a comment, with new page/exhibit numbers.

Checklist

• Every referee point addressed explicitly (none silently dropped)
• Reconciliation with prior published estimates shown numerically, not asserted
• Requested sensitivity/comparative tests added and cross-referenced
• Editor's synthesis used to resolve conflicting referee asks
• Revision still within the 40-page limit; new material pushed to the Online Appendix
• Disclosure statement and data-archive footnote updated if anything changed
• Tone collegial (single-anonymous — they know you)

Anti-patterns

• Answering prose with prose when a number/comparison was requested
• Silently dropping an inconvenient referee point
• Letting the revision balloon past the page limit
• Picking a fight with one referee instead of letting the editor's letter arbitrate
• Forgetting to refresh the data-availability footnote after adding analyses

Common referee pushback at JHR and the expected fix

Worked response excerpt

Comment R2.3: The staggered rollout makes the TWFE estimates hard to interpret.

Response: Done. We now report Callaway-Sant'Anna group-time ATTs as the
preferred estimates (new Table 3) and move TWFE to Appendix Table A7 for
comparison. The event study (new Figure 2) shows pre-period coefficients near
zero; a pre-trend sensitivity exercise (Appendix Table A8) indicates the
headline effect survives violations up to twice the largest pre-period
estimate. Pages 14-16 are rewritten around the new estimates.

Every response of this type names the new exhibit, the new pages, and the result of the check — referees at this venue reward verifiable specificity.

Triage order for a multi-referee letter

1. Editor's letter first: extract the must-do list and any arbitration of conflicts.
2. Empirical asks next (reconciliation, estimators, inference) — these gate acceptance.
3. Framing and exposition asks last; they often resolve themselves once the new tables exist.

Output format

【Decision】R&R / conditional accept
【Referee map】R1/R2/R3 asks → response type each
【Reconciliation】prior-vs-ours table added? [Y/N]
【Sensitivity】new tests + cross-refs? [Y/N]
【Length】still <=40pp; overflow in appendix? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via msubmit.net (no fee)