imfer-rebuttal
GitHub针对IMFER期刊R&R或决定信制定回复策略。分析学术与政策审稿人意见，规划修订方案，决定让步或反驳，并协调双重审稿视角冲突，最终衔接提交流程。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill imfer-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "imfer-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when an IMF Economic Review (IMFER) R&R or decision letter arrived and you need a response-letter strategy for a dual academic\/policy referee panel. Plans and drafts the response; it returns to imfer-submission for the resubmission preflight and does not re-run the original identification (imfer-identification)."
}
Rebuttal Strategy (imfer-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- An IMFER R&R (major or minor) arrived and you must turn referee reports into a revision plan
- The editor's letter prioritizes some points over others and you must read the signal
- A referee asks for a new identification check, a country-composition test, or a stronger policy framing
- Two referees disagree — one academic-leaning, one policy-leaning — and you must satisfy both
- You need to decide what to concede, what to push back on, and what to defer
- A referee requests a major redesign and you must decide whether to comply, push back, or withdraw
How to read an IMFER decision letter
IMFER R&Rs usually carry the dual signature of the pool: an academic referee pressing on identification and frontier novelty, and a reader pressing on policy relevance and program realism. Start from the editor's letter — it ranks the points and signals which are deal-breakers. The classic IMFER revision arc is: shore up the cross-country design, add the composition/common-shock checks the referees expect, and sharpen (or appropriately bound) the policy implication without overreaching. Treat the academic and policy concerns as two tracks that must both be closed.
| Referee ask | Response move |
|---|---|
| "Re-do with a heterogeneity-robust estimator" | re-estimate; show the headline barely moves; report the event-study leads |
| "Show it is not driven by a few countries" | add leave-one-country-out / drop-dominant to the main paper, not just the appendix |
| "This is the global financial cycle" | add the global-cycle / US-shock control; show the result survives |
| "Policy is endogenous to the crisis" | add the instrument / narrative-timing defense; bound the causal reading |
| "The policy implication is overreached" | re-scope the implication to exactly what the design supports |
| "Inference is too narrow" | switch to Driscoll–Kraay / wild-cluster; report the new CIs |
| Two referees disagree | let the editor's ranking arbitrate; address both, flag the tension transparently |
| "Make it reproducible" | finalize the package with restricted-data access instructions |
| "Extend to more countries / a longer sample" | extend if feasible and report; if data-constrained, say so and bound external validity |
Reading the decision verdict
IMFER decisions, like most economics journals, carry a verdict the letter's tone encodes: a major R&R invites real engagement and usually signals the editor wants the paper if the design and policy claim can be shored up; a minor R&R means the contribution is accepted and the asks are executable; a reject-and-resubmit (rarer) means a fundamental redesign before it can re-enter. Calibrate effort to the verdict — do not under-respond to a major R&R by treating it as cosmetic, and do not over-engineer a minor R&R into a new paper the editor did not ask for. The editor's framing of the contribution, not the referee word count, is the signal.
Rebuttal craft
- Lead with a summary of changes keyed to the editor's priorities, then a point-by-point reply.
- Quote each comment, then answer with what changed, where (section/table/page), and the result — show the number, do not just assert.
- Concede gracefully and push back precisely. Where a referee is wrong, disagree with evidence and courtesy; do not stonewall the policy referee on relevance.
- Satisfy both tracks. Close the academic identification asks and the policy-relevance asks; a revision that fixes one and ignores the other stalls.
- Bound, do not inflate, the policy claim. Re-scoping an overreached implication is usually safer than defending it.
- Show robustness moved little. The persuasive object is that new checks leave the headline stable.
Checklist
- Effort calibrated to the verdict (major vs. minor R&R vs. reject-and-resubmit)
- Summary-of-changes table keyed to the editor's ranked priorities
- Every referee point quoted and answered with section/table reference and the result
- New identification / composition / common-shock checks run and reported
- Policy implication re-scoped or sharpened to what the evidence supports
- Both the academic and the policy referee's concerns are closed
- Disagreements handled with evidence, not stonewalling; tensions flagged for the editor
- A polite, point-by-point tone maintained even where the referee is wrong
- Resubmission re-runs the double-blind preflight (
imfer-submission)
Anti-patterns
- A response letter that argues instead of revising — refusing the obvious requested checks
- Closing the academic asks while ignoring the policy referee (or vice versa)
- Re-defending an overreached policy claim instead of bounding it
- Asserting "we added robustness" without showing the new numbers
- Ignoring the editor's signaled priorities and treating all comments as equal
- Forgetting to re-anonymize the revised main file for the next double-blind round
- Letting two conflicting referees pull the paper apart instead of using the editor's ranking to arbitrate
- A response document so long the editor cannot find what changed — lead with the changes table
- Silently dropping a result a referee questioned instead of addressing the concern openly
Worked vignette (illustrative)
The R&R: Referee 1 (academic) wants Callaway–Sant'Anna and a leave-one-country-out; Referee 2 (policy) thinks the CFM welfare claim is overreached; the editor flags identification as the deal-breaker. The response leads with a changes table keyed to that ranking: the headline moves from −0.82 to −0.79 under the new estimator (shown), leave-one-country-out stays in [−0.9, −0.7] (new appendix table referenced), and the welfare claim is re-scoped from "CFMs are optimal" to "CFMs reduce the outflow by roughly half in the regime we study, with the optimal tax bounded at 1–3%." Both referees' tracks close; the editor's priority is addressed first.
Referee pushback mapped to the rebuttal move
- "You did not actually run the requested estimator." → Run it, report the new headline, and show it barely moved — assertion is not enough.
- "The policy claim is still too strong." → Re-scope explicitly to the regime and magnitude the design supports; do not re-defend the original.
- "The two referees contradict each other." → Quote the editor's ranking, address both, and flag the tension transparently for the editor to adjudicate.
Output format
【Journal】IMF Economic Review
【Skill】imfer-rebuttal
【Editor priorities】ranked deal-breakers: ___
【Point-by-point】[comment → change → location → result] for each
【New analyses】estimator / composition / common-shock checks run: ___
【Policy claim】re-scoped / sharpened to the evidence: ___
【Both tracks closed】academic ___ | policy ___
【Next step】imfer-submission (re-run double-blind preflight for resubmission)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:21
