---

name: jpe-rebuttal description: Use when a Journal of Political Economy (JPE) decision letter (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) has arrived and you need to draft the response-to-referees letter and revision plan. Structures the response and the diff; it does not redo the analysis (route back to jpe-identification / jpe-theory-model / jpe-robustness first).

R&R Response & Rebuttal (jpe-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• A JPE R&R (or reject-with-encouragement-to-resubmit) letter has arrived
• You have referee reports and need a point-by-point response plan
• You are deciding which requests to implement, which to push back on, and how
• The revision is drafted and you need the response letter to accompany it

Do the revisions before writing the letter. The letter documents changes already made; it should never promise work that is not in the revised manuscript.

Reading the decision letter

• The co-editor's letter is the binding document (at JPE the handling co-editor — Chicago-centered board led by Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, or a companion lead editor: John List for JPE Microeconomics, Greg Kaplan for JPE Macroeconomics — writes it). Identify which referee points the co-editor flags as essential vs. optional and prioritize accordingly.
• Separate requests into: (a) must-do for the co-editor, (b) reasonable and cheap, (c) costly or wrong-headed. Negotiate (c) with evidence, not assertion.
• A JPE co-editor and referees care most about the economic argument: expect demands to strengthen the mechanism, address a GE/selection objection, or sharpen identification. Treat those as first-order.
• Plan replication readiness now: a conditional accept triggers the JPE Data Editor's reproducibility check and deposit to the JPE Dataverse (see jpe-replication-package).

Response-letter structure

1. Cover note to the co-editor: thank them; summarize the 3–4 substantive changes; state how the paper is now stronger economically. One page.
2. Point-by-point, per referee, in the referee's order:
   • Quote (or paraphrase) the comment.
   • State the change made, with the new text/exhibit and where it now lives (section, table, page).
   • Where you disagree, respond with evidence and economic reasoning — concede what is fair, hold the line where you are right, and never be defensive.
3. A summary of changes mapping each major comment to the revised location, so the co-editor can verify at a glance.

Tone: respectful, concise, confident. Every response is either "done, here it is" or "we respectfully differ, and here is why." Avoid hedging and avoid over-promising future work.

Handling the JPE-typical demands

• "Strengthen the mechanism" → route to jpe-theory-model; add the model result or the discriminating test, then report it.
• "Address general equilibrium" → bound or sign the equilibrium effect; if it materially changes the interpretation, say so honestly.
• "Rule out alternative X" → route to jpe-robustness; add the discriminating test, summarize in text, table in appendix.
• "Identification is not convincing" → route to jpe-identification; add diagnostics/falsification or reframe the claim to what the design supports.
• Conflicting referees → flag the conflict to the co-editor and explain the path you chose and why.

Checklist

• Every referee point has an explicit response (none skipped)
• Each "done" response points to the exact revised location
• Disagreements backed by evidence/economic reasoning, framed respectfully
• Co-editor's essential requests all addressed first
• Mechanism / GE / identification demands treated as first-order
• Replication package on track for the JPE Data Editor if a conditional accept follows
• Revisions are actually in the manuscript before the letter is written
• Summary-of-changes table maps comments → locations
• No new claim is over-promised without being delivered

Anti-patterns

• Writing the response letter before doing the revisions
• Skipping or merging referee points to seem responsive
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward a fair criticism
• Conceding a correct result because a referee pushed hard (defend it with evidence)
• Promising "future work" in place of an analysis the editor asked for now
• Ignoring the co-editor's prioritization and treating all comments as equal

Output format

【Decision】R&R / reject-with-encouragement
【Co-editor's essential points】1... 2... 3...
【Per-referee plan】R1: [done / push-back + evidence] ; R2: ... ; R3: ...
【First-order (mechanism/GE/ID)】how addressed
【Revisions complete before letter】[y/n]
【Summary-of-changes table】drafted? [y/n]
【Replication readiness】code ready for JPE Data Editor on accept? [y/n]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Express (jpe-submission for format re-check)