---

name: apsr-rebuttal description: Use when writing the response to an American Political Science Review (APSR) revise-and-resubmit. APSR reserves R&R for papers close to publishable, and decisions weigh strong support from all or nearly all reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

R&R Rebuttal (apsr-rebuttal)

An APSR R&R is a strong signal — it is "reserved for papers very close to publishable quality." But publication generally needs strong support from all or nearly all reviewers, and the call is the editor's discretion. So the response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent.

When to trigger

• An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
• Reviewers disagree with each other and you must reconcile their demands
• A reviewer requests analyses that would change the paper's claims
• Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which points are decisive. Solve those first and foremost; the editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
2. One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the new text/table number), or push back respectfully with a reason (theory, design, or evidence). Editors respect a well-argued disagreement more than a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
4. Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When R2 wants the opposite of R3, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor. Don't silently satisfy one and ignore the other.
5. Protect the contribution. Add robustness and clarifications; resist changes that dilute the general-significance claim that earned the R&R. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
6. Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-anonymous), and update the reproducibility package so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see apsr-transparency-and-data-policy).

Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end the per-comment entries with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
• Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic just to please a reviewer
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
• "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
• Adding analyses that quietly contradict the original claim without acknowledging it
• Letting the revised manuscript or new exhibits drift out of sync with the deposited package

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of general significance? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager

Triage table for an APSR R&R

At the APSA/Cambridge flagship, publication generally needs near-unanimous reviewer support and the editor adjudicates, so triage each comment by who must be satisfied and what the comment threatens.

Comment signal	Who owns the call	Default move in the response
Editor flags it as decisive	editor	solve first, headline it in the cover note
Two reviewers want opposite things	editor	pick a principled path, explain the tradeoff openly
Reviewer asks for an analysis that would change the claim	author + editor	run it, then defend or re-scope the contribution honestly
Reviewer wants the result generalized beyond design	author	add scope conditions; resist over-claiming
Reviewer disputes a methodological choice across traditions	author	answer on that tradition's own terms (pluralism)

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A hypothetical R&R draws four reviews. The editor's letter names two decisive points (identification and general significance). R2 wants the formal model cut; R4 wants it expanded. The disciplined letter opens with a three-sentence summary to the editor, addresses identification and significance first with new text/table locations, then reconciles R2/R4 by keeping a compact model in the main text and moving derivations to the appendix — stating the tradeoff explicitly rather than silently siding with one reviewer. Of 31 total comments, 31 receive a quoted response; 22 are conceded with a change location, 9 are rebutted with a reason. (Counts illustrative.)

Referee-pushback patterns and the APSR-specific repair

• "Revision diluted the general-significance claim that earned the R&R." → Restore the discipline-wide framing; defend scope conditions instead of retreating to a subfield result.
• "New tables don't match the deposited package." → Re-verify the reproducibility package so every revised exhibit re-runs; the editorial office checks this before publication.
• "You ignored a comment." → Silence reads as non-compliance; quote and answer every one, even to say why you respectfully disagree.
• "Capitulation weakened the paper's logic." → A well-argued disagreement is respected more than a hollow concession; editors at a generalist venue reward a coherent contribution.

Calibration anchors (hedged)

• Treat the editor's letter as the rubric: at a discretion-based generalist venue, the editor weighs reviewers rather than counting votes.
• Because APSR spans formal, quantitative, qualitative, and normative work, a cross-tradition reviewer objection is answered in that tradition's idiom, not deflected.
• The exact decision-category language and editor-discretion policy can change — confirm against the journal's current peer-review guidelines before quoting them in the letter.

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — R&R/decision categories and editor-discretion policy