---

name: psychbull-rebuttal description: Use when writing the response to a Psychological Bulletin revise-and-resubmit. A synthesis R&R often demands re-running the search, adding studies, or new bias/moderator analyses, so the response must satisfy every reviewer and the editor while keeping the meta-analysis internally consistent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate results.

R&R Rebuttal (psychbull-rebuttal)

A Psychological Bulletin R&R on a synthesis is distinctive: reviewer requests often touch the search, eligibility, coding, model, or bias analyses — any of which can ripple through every downstream estimate, table, and figure. The response letter must convert each reviewer and keep the editor confident without breaking the synthesis's internal consistency or its deposited package.

When to trigger

• An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
• A reviewer wants the search expanded, studies added, or eligibility changed
• A reviewer requests a different model, more moderators, or more bias diagnostics
• Reviewers disagree and you must reconcile their demands

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor flags the decisive points; solve those first.
2. One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond; never skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. Propagate changes consistently. If you expand the search or change eligibility, you must re-run everything downstream — pooled effect, heterogeneity, moderators, bias diagnostics, PRISMA counts, every table and figure — and keep them mutually consistent. State the new k.
4. Concede or rebut with evidence. Did what was asked (say where, with new numbers/exhibit numbers), or push back respectfully on methodological grounds (e.g., why an unplanned moderator stays exploratory, why a bias test is uninformative under high heterogeneity).
5. Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly. When one wants broader inclusion and another stricter, choose a principled rule, apply it, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
6. Protect the contribution. Add robustness and clarification; resist changes that dilute the synthesis or over-claim beyond the evidence and heterogeneity.
7. Keep it masked and update the package. The revised manuscript stays masked; update the deposited database, codebook, and scripts so new estimates remain reproducible.

Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page; new k; table/figure number; updated estimate].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor (especially any change in study count or model); group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of every change for quick verification.

Anti-patterns

• Adding studies but leaving stale estimates/figures from the old pool (inconsistent synthesis)
• Ignoring or silently merging a comment
• Capitulating to a request that breaks eligibility logic just to please a reviewer
• Reporting a new bias test without acknowledging it changes the bottom line
• Letting the revised manuscript drift out of sync with the deposited package
• Reintroducing author clues while editing (breaks masking)

Worked vignette — propagating an R&R through the synthesis

Illustrative numbers only. The self-affirmation synthesis returns with an R&R: Reviewer 1 wants the search expanded to two more databases; Reviewer 2 calls the delivery-format moderator post-hoc; Reviewer 3 wants a selection model added. Under this skill's rules the response propagates cleanly:

• Search expansion recovers 5 new trials, raising k from 42 to 47; everything downstream is re-run — pooled g shifts from 0.34 to 0.32 [0.23, 0.41], I² to 65%, and the PRISMA flow, forest plot, and summary table are regenerated to match.
• Moderator challenge: the response cites the OSF protocol showing delivery format was pre-specified, so it stays confirmatory.
• New bias test: the selection model lands g ≈ 0.24, consistent with the PET-PEESE bound; the letter states it nudges the bottom line toward "real but inflated."
• Package: the deposited database (now 47 studies), codebook, and scripts are updated; the manuscript stays masked.

Reviewer pushback → response move (Bulletin-specific)

Reviewer comment	Response move
"Search not exhaustive / PRISMA gaps"	Add databases, re-run downstream estimates, state the new k, regenerate the flow
"Moderators are post-hoc fishing"	Cite the registered protocol; keep pre-specified ones confirmatory, relabel any unplanned as exploratory
"Only one bias test"	Add converging diagnostics; report how the bottom line moves
"Reviewers disagree on inclusion"	Choose one principled rule, apply it, explain the tradeoff
"No integration beyond tallying"	Strengthen the contribution per psychbull-theory-integration

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Re-run propagated】new k; all estimates/exhibits consistent? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained? [Y/N]
【Masked + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — re-running the search/analysis; keeping the package in sync
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — masked review and transparency policy behind the response