---

name: jel-revision description: Use when responding to editor and referee feedback on a Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) survey — coverage gaps, balance complaints, framework/structure asks, and accessibility. Drafts the response letter and revision plan; it does not run the submission preflight (jel-submission) or redesign the spine from scratch (jel-organizing-framework).

Revision & Response for a Survey (jel-revision)

When to trigger

• An editor/referee letter on the survey arrived (revise-and-resubmit or major revision)
• Referees flagged missing literatures, imbalance, or "reads like a list"
• The editor asked to expand, cut, or rebalance coverage
• You need a point-by-point response letter for a survey, not a primary paper

Categories of survey feedback (and how to answer each)

JEL revision asks cluster differently from primary-research asks. Triage every point into one bucket:

Feedback type	Typical phrasing	Response move
Coverage gap	"you omit the X literature / author Y"	almost always concede and integrate — place the missing work in the right framework cell; re-run saturation (jel-literature-synthesis)
Balance / fairness	"this slights school Z / over-cites the author"	steelman the slighted side; re-audit self-citation (jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance)
Framework / structure	"this is an annotated bibliography"	strengthen or make explicit the spine (jel-organizing-framework); do not just reorder paragraphs
Appraisal accuracy	"you mischaracterize study W"	correct the characterization; surveyed authors often referee — fix precisely
Accessibility	"a non-specialist can't follow Section 4"	add intuition, define jargon (jel-writing-style)
Scope	"too broad / too narrow"	negotiate with the editor (jel-editor-strategy); rescope deliberately, not by random cuts

Writing the response letter

• Point-by-point, quote-then-respond. Reproduce each comment, then state the change and where it lives (section/page/table).
• Coverage asks: concede gracefully and integrate. A missing literature is a real defect in a survey of record; adding it strengthens the article. Resist defensiveness.
• Balance asks: show the steelman. Demonstrate the revised text states the other side at its strongest; this is what a fairness complaint actually demands.
• Disagree rarely and respectfully. If an ask would break the spine or expand scope unfinishably, explain the trade-off and propose an alternative, ideally pre-cleared with the editor.
• Re-run the comprehensiveness audit after integrating new material so additions do not unbalance the whole.
• Keep the editor central. On scope and conflicting referee asks, ask the editor to adjudicate rather than trying to satisfy mutually-incompatible referees.
• Track every addition's ripple. Adding a literature can shift the survey's center of gravity; after each integration, re-check that the framework cells, the summary tables, and the balance audit still hold, so a fix to one comment does not quietly break another.

Checklist

• Every comment triaged into a bucket (coverage / balance / framework / appraisal / accessibility / scope)
• Coverage gaps conceded and integrated into the right framework cell; saturation re-run
• Balance complaints answered by demonstrable steelmanning + self-citation re-audit
• "Annotated bibliography" asks answered by a stronger/explicit spine, not reordering
• Mischaracterizations corrected precisely (surveyed authors may be the referees)
• Accessibility fixes add intuition / define jargon for the non-specialist
• Scope conflicts routed to the editor for adjudication
• Point-by-point letter: quote-then-respond, with section/page/table locations
• Comprehensiveness + balance re-audited after all additions

Anti-patterns

• Defending an omission rather than adding the missing literature (a survey gap is a real defect)
• Answering a balance complaint with assertions of fairness instead of revised, steelmanned text
• "Fixing" an annotated-bibliography critique by shuffling paragraphs without imposing a spine
• Bloating scope to satisfy every "also cover…" until the survey no longer finishes
• Mischaracterizing or dismissing a surveyed author who is likely your referee
• Trying to satisfy two contradictory referees instead of asking the editor to decide

Output format

【Triage】each comment bucketed (coverage/balance/framework/appraisal/accessibility/scope)? Y/N
【Coverage gaps】conceded + integrated into framework cells; saturation re-run? Y/N
【Balance】steelman shown in revised text; self-citation re-audited? Y/N
【Framework asks】spine strengthened/made explicit (not reordered)? Y/N
【Appraisal fixes】mischaracterizations corrected precisely? Y/N
【Scope conflicts】routed to editor? Y/N
【Letter】point-by-point, quote-then-respond, with locations? Y/N
【Next step】→ jel-submission (re-preflight the revised survey)