---

name: psci-rebuttal description: Use when writing the response to a Psychological Science revise-and-resubmit. Reviews here often demand added robustness, fuller disclosure, or stronger transparency, so the response must address every point and strengthen credibility without breaking the tight format. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

R&R Rebuttal (psci-rebuttal)

A Psychological Science R&R typically asks for more robustness, fuller disclosure, or stronger transparency — and all of it has to fit back inside a very tight word format. The response letter must convert every reviewer and reassure the editor on credibility, while keeping the paper within budget.

When to trigger

• An R&R arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
• Reviewers requested added analyses, robustness, disclosure, or open-science changes
• A requested analysis would change the claim
• Writing the cover note to the editor

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. Solve the decisive points first; the editor adjudicates among reviewers.
2. Point-by-point, every comment. Quote each comment, then respond; never skip one.
3. Strengthen credibility, don't just defend. Many requests (more power, robustness checks, fuller disclosure, better data/materials sharing, clearer confirmatory/exploratory split) make the paper stronger — do them and say where. The Research Transparency Statement may need updating.
4. Manage the word budget. New robustness usually belongs in supplemental online material so the 2,000-word core stays intact; summarize it briefly in the main text and point to the supplement.
5. Concede or rebut with evidence. Did what was asked (cite the location), or push back respectfully with a reason — don't add an analysis that quietly undercuts the claim without saying so.
6. Keep anonymization in the revised (masked) manuscript and repository links, and ensure new analyses are reflected in the shared scripts/data (see psci-open-science-and-transparency).

Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Main text section, supplement section, or table/figure number].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location (note when content went to the supplement to protect the word budget).

Worked micro-example (illustrative response entries)

For the two-study attention package, an R&R asked for power, a replication, and tighter disclosure.

> R2: Study 1 (N = 240) feels underpowered for a d ≈ 0.3 effect.

Response: We agree precision matters here. Study 1 had ~80% power for
d = 0.36 (sensitivity analysis now in Methods). To address fragility we
added Study 2 (N = 300), which directly replicates the effect
(d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.06, 0.51]). Pooled estimate: d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.13, 0.49].
Change: Main text Methods (power), Results (Study 2); robustness grid → Supplement S3.

> R1: The trait-anxiety interaction looks post hoc.

Response: Correct — it was exploratory in Study 1 and we now say so
explicitly. We preregistered it for Study 2; it is labeled confirmatory
only there.
Change: Results (status labels); Research Transparency Statement updated.

R&R triage — where each request lands

Reviewer ask	Default home (protects the 2,000-word core)	Note
Added robustness / specification grid	supplemental online material	summarize in one sentence in main text
New confirmatory study	Methods/Results (it is the contribution)	preregister it; update Transparency Statement
Fuller disclosure of exclusions/measures	Methods + Transparency Statement	a table, not prose, to save words
"Soften the claim"	Discussion	scale the wording to the CI, not the p-value
Effect-size/CI reporting	tables and inline	route exhibits to psci-tables-figures

Recurring R&R pushback and the venue fix

• "Single underpowered study" → add internal replication or move to a multi-study package; report the pooled estimate with its CI; never argue the p-value alone.
• "You added an analysis that quietly weakens the effect" → disclose it, interpret it, and adjust the claim; concealment is the cardinal sin at this venue.
• "Revision busts the format" → confirm the current word allowance against the journal's submission guidelines, then push new robustness to the supplement and cite it.

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
• Cramming new robustness into the 2,000-word core and busting the format
• Capitulating to a change that breaks the paper's logic
• Adding analyses that contradict the original claim without acknowledgment
• Letting shared data/scripts/Transparency Statement drift out of sync with the revision
• Reintroducing identifying information into the masked revision

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Credibility strengthened】power/robustness/disclosure/transparency improved? [Y/N]
【Word budget】new material in supplement; core ≤ 2,000? [Y/N]
【Open-science updated】scripts/data/Transparency Statement in sync? [Y/N]
【Anonymization intact】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Manuscript Central

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, transparency weighting, format