---

name: msom-rebuttal description: Use after a Manufacturing & Service Operations Management (M&SOM) revise-and-resubmit — planning the revision around the Department Editor and Associate Editor priorities, then drafting a point-by-point response to referees while preserving operations centrality, the structured abstract, and the 32-page typeset cap. Drives the revision; revise the manuscript before drafting the letter.

R&R Rebuttal (msom-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You received an M&SOM major/minor revision and must plan the response
• Referees ask for additional numerical studies, robustness, or identification work
• The DE/AE flag operations centrality, tractability, or managerial relevance
• You are drafting the point-by-point response letter

Revise first, then write the letter

Plan from the Department Editor and Associate Editor signals first — in M&SOM's department-routed model, their priorities are the binding contract; referee points must each be addressed or carefully rebutted. Do the actual modeling/analysis work before writing prose: add the proposition, run the requested numerical study, strengthen the identification. Then write a response that maps each comment to a concrete change.

Common M&SOM revision demands

• Analytical: generalize or relax a binding assumption and show the policy structure survives (or characterize when it does not); add comparative statics; expand the numerical study to quantify magnitudes versus benchmarks and stress assumptions; move heavy proofs to the ≤16-page supplement.
• Empirical: shore up identification (additional instruments, event-study/parallel-trends evidence, placebo/falsification tests), treat endogenous operational decisions, and report effects in operational magnitudes.
• Both: sharpen the managerial implication and confirm the operations decision is still central; keep the structured abstract aligned with the revised results.

Watch the constraints while revising

The added results must fit the 32-page typeset cap (everything counts) — push new proofs and experiments into the online supplement (≤ 16 pages). Keep the manuscript anonymized (double-anonymous), keep INFORMS author-year style, and update the structured abstract if results changed.

The response letter

• Open with a brief summary of the major changes and how the operations contribution is now sharper.
• Restate each DE/AE/referee comment verbatim, then your response and the exact location of the change (section, proposition, table, supplement page).
• Where you disagree, rebut respectfully with evidence; do not silently ignore a point.
• Be consistent: the letter, the manuscript, and the abstract must tell the same story.

Checklist

• DE/AE priorities identified and treated as binding
• Every referee comment mapped to a change or a reasoned rebuttal
• Requested proofs/numerical studies/identification work actually done
• Operations centrality and managerial implication reaffirmed
• Added material fits the 32-page cap; overflow moved to the ≤16-page supplement
• Structured abstract and anonymization updated; INFORMS style intact
• Point-by-point letter cites exact locations of each change

Anti-patterns

• Writing the response letter before doing the modeling/analysis work.
• Treating referee and DE/AE comments as equal when DE/AE priorities should lead.
• Adding results that blow past the 32-page cap instead of using the supplement.
• Quietly dropping a comment you find inconvenient.
• Letting the revision dilute the operations decision at the core.

Triaging the decision letter (priority before prose)

In M&SOM's department-routed model the comments are not equal in weight. The DE's and AE's items are binding — they gate acceptance — so address them fully and rebut only with strong evidence; substantive referee points are mapped to comment → change → exact location, and conflicts go to the AE rather than being silently resolved. The fatal error is spending the revision on referee minutiae while under-serving the DE/AE priority.

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

Vignette: an R&R on a supply-chain contracting model where the AE writes "the coordination result is elegant but I do not see the managerial insight" and a referee asks for a more general demand distribution. The disciplined response treats the AE's insight gap as the binding item — adding the comparative static that the optimal buyback rate falls as demand becomes more variable and leading with that rule — then does the referee's generalization, showing the structure survives under an illustrative broader class, and pushes the extended proof to the supplement. The letter maps each point to a section and proposition number.

Referee-pushback patterns and the venue fix

• "Structural result still lacks a managerial takeaway." → Add the named decision rule and its comparative static; revise the structured abstract's managerial-implications part to match.
• "New robustness blew past the page cap." → Move proofs and extra experiments to the supplement; confirm the current cap against the journal's author guidelines. And never quietly drop an inconvenient comment — restate it verbatim, then respond, since silence reads as evasion.

Output format

【DE/AE priorities】binding items ...
【Per-referee plan】comment → change / rebuttal → location ...
【Work done】proofs / numerical study / identification ...
【Constraints】within 32 pages; overflow to supplement; abstract updated ...
【Response letter】point-by-point with exact locations ...
【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne → msom-review-process