R&R Response & Rebuttal (mksc-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You received an MKSC R&R and have planned the revision (via mksc-review-process)
• You have actually made (or scoped) the manuscript and code changes and need to write the response
• You must reconcile conflicting reviewer demands for the AE
• A later-round decision asks you to defend or extend prior changes

Write the response after revising the manuscript and re-running the analysis — it documents changes, not promises. The process is developmental and typically multi-round; resubmit the revised manuscript, response document, and updated replication materials through ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/mksc), keeping the same handling team where possible and the manuscript blinded.

Response-document structure

1. Opening letter to the Senior/Associate Editor. Thank the team; summarize the most important changes in 2–4 sentences; explicitly address the AE's prioritized concerns. Note where reviewers conflicted and how you resolved it. (The cover letter/response is seen by the Editor/AE; keep the manuscript anonymized.)
2. Per-reviewer sections. Restate every comment (numbered/faithfully), then respond.
3. Point-by-point format: Comment → Response (what you did and the modeling/econometric reasoning) → Location (section/table). Quote new manuscript text where helpful.

Responding to MKSC's signature demands

• "Identification is not credible." Add the explicit identification argument, stronger/alternative instruments, a sensitivity-of-estimates analysis, or a Monte Carlo recovering known parameters — and explain why it resolves the concern (see mksc-data-analysis).
• "The model is too restrictive / an assumption drives the result." Relax the assumption and re-estimate, or show the result is robust to it; report the new comparative static/counterfactual.
• "The counterfactual is not valid." Re-solve allowing firms to re-optimize, report magnitudes with uncertainty, and bound the scope of validity.
• "Computation / multiple equilibria." Report solver settings, convergence, multiple starting values, and how multiplicity is handled.
• "Replication." Update the data-and-code package; confirm the master script reproduces every revised table/figure/counterfactual.
• Adding analysis vs. length. Heavy new derivations or robustness usually live in the online appendix; for a Frontiers paper, the 6,000-word total cap still binds, so move detail online.

Before/after: answering the signature "identification" objection

The modal MKSC first-round comment is some form of "I am not convinced the model identifies the effect." Compare responses:

• Weak (citation-padding, will draw a second round): "We thank the reviewer. We have added references to prior structural work establishing that this class of models is identified (Section 3)."
• Strong (re-analysis, closes the point): "We agree the argument was implicit. We now (i) state the exclusion restriction explicitly — cost shifter Z shifts supply but not demand conditional on our controls (Section 3.2); (ii) add a Monte Carlo that recovers the known parameters from simulated data within 3% (Appendix C.1); and (iii) report a sensitivity analysis showing the counterfactual moves less than 5% as we perturb the restriction (Table C4). Together these address the concern that [assumption] drove the estimate."

The strong version does real work — an explicit restriction, a recovery experiment, and a sensitivity bound — and tells the AE exactly where each lives.

Reconciling conflicting reviewers for the AE

When reviewers pull in opposite directions (R1: "the model is too stylized"; R2: "the model is over-parameterized"), do not silently satisfy one. State the trade-off to the AE, choose a resolution, and justify it: e.g., "We keep the parsimonious specification R2 favored and add R1's richer variant as a robustness check in Appendix D, showing the main counterfactual is unchanged." Surfacing the conflict with a defended choice reads as judgment; picking a side silently reads as evasion.

Tone and tactics

• Be respectful and substantive; concede gracefully and make the change.
• Disagree with evidence (an alternative estimation, a robustness result), not assertion.
• Address every point; silent omissions read as evasion.
• Surface reviewer conflicts to the AE with your chosen resolution.

Checklist

• Manuscript and code actually revised before the letter was written
• AE's prioritized concerns addressed first and explicitly
• Every reviewer comment restated and answered, with locations
• Identification / assumption / counterfactual demands met with real re-analysis
• Computation and replication-package updates documented
• Declined requests justified with evidence and an alternative test
• Manuscript stays blinded; length/Frontiers cap respected

Anti-patterns

• Writing the response before re-running the analysis.
• Answering "deepen identification" by adding citations instead of re-estimating.
• A counterfactual left unchanged when firm re-optimization was the objection.
• Skipping an inconvenient comment or de-blinding the manuscript.

Output format

【Round】1st R&R / 2nd / ...
【AE priorities addressed】1... 2... 3...
【Per-reviewer coverage】R1 x/x, R2 x/x, R3 x/x — all answered?
【Major changes】model/identification: ... counterfactual: ... computation: ...
【Replication】updated package reproduces revised exhibits?
【Declined + justification】...
【Status】drafted / final → resubmit via ScholarOne
【Next step】on next decision → mksc-review-process