jom-rebuttal
GitHub针对JOM修改重投（R&R）的回复信撰写技能。优先处理部门/副编辑的关键意见，彻底解决方法审查问题，确保运营核心地位，并规范多轮修改与透明报告新分析。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jom-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jom-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when planning and drafting a revision and point-by-point response letter for a Journal of Operations Management (JOM) R&R — prioritizing the Department Editor\/Associate Editor's decisive concerns, resolving Empirical Research Methods method-check issues, and documenting new operations analyses across multiple rounds."
}
R&R Rebuttal for JOM (jom-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received a major-revision (R&R) decision from JOM
- You must turn Department Editor, Associate Editor, and reviewer comments into a revision plan
- You need a point-by-point response letter that survives a second round
- Method-check or identification concerns must be resolved before resubmission
Triage the letter first
JOM's decision is filtered through a Department Editor and Associate Editor on top of reviewers. Before writing:
- Extract the DE/AE's decisive priorities — these set what must change for the paper to survive. They outrank individual reviewer asks when those conflict.
- Separate method-check issues (sampling, measurement validity, identification/endogeneity, common-method remedies, reproducibility). Given JOM's institutionalized Empirical Research Methods gate, these usually must be fully resolved, not argued away.
- Flag contribution concerns — "operations not central enough" or "theory contribution thin" require reframing via
jom-contribution-framing, not just more tables. - Note presentational items — exhibits, APA style, length, clarity.
Build the response letter
- One numbered entry per comment, quoting it, then your response, then the exact change and location (section/page/table).
- Lead each response with what you did; reserve disagreement for cases where you can defend the original with evidence, and do so respectfully.
- For new analyses (alternative identification, added robustness, a new operational measure, additional respondents/sites), report them transparently — including results that did not change the conclusion.
- Keep operations at the heart in every revision; do not let added analyses dilute the operations argument.
Multi-round expectations
Expect more than one round; first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of. Maintain a clean changelog and a reproducible analysis pipeline so each round's edits are traceable. Re-run the similarity check (single-source <1%, overall <15%) on the revised manuscript, and update disclosures (e.g., any new prior-data use).
Anti-patterns
- Answering reviewers while ignoring the DE/AE's decisive framing.
- Arguing away a method-check/identification concern instead of fixing it.
- Cosmetic edits where the editor asked for a substantive operations or theory change.
- Reporting only the robustness checks that worked.
Triage matrix for a JOM decision letter
Sort every comment before drafting. The categories below reflect how JOM's Department-routed, methods-gated process weights concerns; resolution norms are interpretive — confirm against your letter's instructions.
| Comment type | Source weight | Typical resolution norm |
|---|---|---|
| Operations-as-heart / contribution | DE/AE decisive | Reframe via jom-contribution-framing; change it |
| Method-check (sampling, measurement, identification) | Methods gate | Fix fully; arguing away rarely survives |
| Theory mechanism | DE/AE + reviewers | Strengthen the a priori operations logic |
| Robustness / alternative specification | Reviewer | Add and report transparently, nulls included |
| Presentation (exhibits, APA, length) | Reviewer | Implement; low-cost goodwill |
Response-letter desk-reject and irritation triggers
- Answering reviewer points while ignoring the DE/AE's decisive framing — the fastest route to a reject.
- Reporting only the robustness checks that confirmed it.
- Cosmetic edits where the editor asked for a substantive operations or theory change.
Worked vignette: resolving an identification objection across rounds
An R&R on a supplier-disruption archival study carries one decisive AE concern — reverse causality between disruption exposure and resilience investment — plus six reviewer asks (illustrative). Triage: the AE concern is the survival issue, so the revision leads with a new identification strategy (an instrument from upstream geographic shocks, first-stage F reported, exclusion argued in operations terms), then folds the reviewer points around it. The letter opens each entry with what was done and the exact table/page, reports the instrumented estimate even though it attenuates, and states the operational conclusion holds in direction. Because the decisive method-check concern is fixed rather than rebutted, the paper can clear the second round.
Editor pushback on the letter, and the remedy
- "You addressed reviewers but not the editor's main concern." Restructure the letter so the DE/AE's decisive priorities are resolved first and visibly.
- "Operations is still not central enough." Re-anchor the revised argument on the operations mechanism; do not let robustness tables dilute it.
Calibrating round expectations (hedged)
First-round acceptance is essentially unheard of at JOM and multiple developmental rounds are the norm; budget for at least one more round and keep a clean changelog and reproducible pipeline so edits stay traceable. This reflects JOM's review culture, not a guaranteed outcome — read your letter for the editor's stated trajectory.
Output format
【DE/AE decisive priorities】...
【Method-check issues to resolve】sampling/measures/identification/reproducibility ...
【Contribution reframes needed】...
【New analyses planned】...
【Response-letter structure】numbered, change+location per comment
【Similarity re-check + disclosure updates】...
【Round】expect multiple; changelog maintained
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:52
