Rebuttal & Revision (qje-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• A QJE decision letter arrived: revise-and-resubmit, or a conditional/major revision
• You have referee reports and need a response strategy
• You are unsure how to prioritize conflicting referee demands
• The revised manuscript exists and you need to draft the response letter

QJE reality: few rounds, high stakes

At an unconditional acceptance rate of only ~1-4%, an R&R from one of QJE's five Harvard-based Editors is a rare and valuable signal — treat it as a near-final opportunity and address everything substantive in this round rather than negotiating across many. The handling Editor's letter is the contract: at QJE a single Editor (not a co-editor + AE layer) owns the decision, so that letter tells you which referee points are binding and which are optional. Read it first and let it set priorities.

Triage protocol

1. Decode the Editor. The Editor's letter ranks the issues. A point the Editor underscores is binding; a point only one referee raised and the Editor ignored is lower priority (but still answer it).
2. Classify every comment. For each referee point, tag it: fundamental (must add analysis), clarification (rewrite/explain), or disagreement (you will push back, politely, with evidence).
3. Sequence the work. Do the analysis first (route fundamentals to qje-identification / qje-robustness / qje-theory-model), update exhibits, then write the letter — never write the letter before the manuscript reflects the changes.
4. Never pick a fight you can win with a robustness check. If a check settles it, run the check; reserve disagreement for points where the referee is genuinely mistaken.

Response-letter structure

• Opening: thank the Editor and referees; summarize the main changes in a short paragraph.
• Point-by-point: quote each comment, then respond. Each response = what you did + where in the revised paper it now appears (section/table/figure/page).
• Disagreements: state the referee's point fairly, then give the evidence-based reason you respectfully differ; offer a compromise (e.g., added to the appendix) where possible.
• Tone: gracious, concrete, never defensive. Show the referees made the paper better.
• Change log: optionally include a brief summary of all changes up front for the Editor's convenience.

Checklist

• Editor's priorities decoded and used to rank responses
• Every referee comment classified (fundamental / clarification / disagreement)
• All fundamental requests resolved with actual new analysis, not promises
• Each response cites the exact location of the change in the revised paper
• Disagreements are evidence-based, fair, and offer a compromise
• Tone is gracious and concrete throughout
• Revised manuscript updated before the letter was written
• No new over-claiming introduced while answering reviewers

Anti-patterns

• Writing the response letter before the manuscript actually reflects the changes
• Promising future work instead of doing the analysis this round (rounds are scarce at ~1-4% acceptance)
• Arguing with a referee where a quick robustness check would settle it
• Defensive or curt tone; treating reports as attacks rather than help
• Answering only the easy points and hand-waving the hard one the Editor flagged
• Vague responses ("we have addressed this") with no location in the paper

Output format

【Decision】R&R / major / conditional
【Editor's binding points】[...]
【Comment classification】fundamental: [...] / clarification: [...] / disagreement: [...]
【Analysis routed to】qje-identification / qje-robustness / qje-theory-model (as needed)
【Letter status】point-by-point with locations? [Y/N]
【Tone check】gracious + concrete? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit the single PDF via Editorial Express (qje-submission for file checks)