Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jpe-rebuttal
jpe-rebuttal
GitHub针对JPE R&R或鼓励重投决定，指导起草回复信及修订计划。先完成修订再撰写信件，按编辑要求分类处理意见，结构化回应审稿人，并路由至相关技能模块补充分析或稳健性检验。
Trigger Scenarios
收到JPE修改重投（R&R）或鼓励重投的决定信
需要制定逐点回复审稿人的计划
修订稿已完成，需撰写配套的回复信
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jpe-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jpe-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when a Journal of Political Economy (JPE) decision letter (R&R or reject-with-encouragement) has arrived and you need to draft the response-to-referees letter and revision plan. Structures the response and the diff; it does not redo the analysis (route back to jpe-identification \/ jpe-theory-model \/ jpe-robustness first)."
}
R&R Response & Rebuttal (jpe-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- A JPE R&R (or reject-with-encouragement-to-resubmit) letter has arrived
- You have referee reports and need a point-by-point response plan
- You are deciding which requests to implement, which to push back on, and how
- The revision is drafted and you need the response letter to accompany it
Do the revisions before writing the letter. The letter documents changes already made; it should never promise work that is not in the revised manuscript.
Reading the decision letter
- The co-editor's letter is the binding document (at JPE the handling co-editor — Chicago-centered board led by Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, or a companion lead editor: John List for JPE Microeconomics, Greg Kaplan for JPE Macroeconomics — writes it). Identify which referee points the co-editor flags as essential vs. optional and prioritize accordingly.
- Separate requests into: (a) must-do for the co-editor, (b) reasonable and cheap, (c) costly or wrong-headed. Negotiate (c) with evidence, not assertion.
- A JPE co-editor and referees care most about the economic argument: expect demands to strengthen the mechanism, address a GE/selection objection, or sharpen identification. Treat those as first-order.
- Plan replication readiness now: a conditional accept triggers the JPE Data Editor's reproducibility check and deposit to the JPE Dataverse (see
jpe-replication-package).
Response-letter structure
- Cover note to the co-editor: thank them; summarize the 3–4 substantive changes; state how the paper is now stronger economically. One page.
- Point-by-point, per referee, in the referee's order:
- Quote (or paraphrase) the comment.
- State the change made, with the new text/exhibit and where it now lives (section, table, page).
- Where you disagree, respond with evidence and economic reasoning — concede what is fair, hold the line where you are right, and never be defensive.
- A summary of changes mapping each major comment to the revised location, so the co-editor can verify at a glance.
Tone: respectful, concise, confident. Every response is either "done, here it is" or "we respectfully differ, and here is why." Avoid hedging and avoid over-promising future work.
Handling the JPE-typical demands
- "Strengthen the mechanism" → route to
jpe-theory-model; add the model result or the discriminating test, then report it. - "Address general equilibrium" → bound or sign the equilibrium effect; if it materially changes the interpretation, say so honestly.
- "Rule out alternative X" → route to
jpe-robustness; add the discriminating test, summarize in text, table in appendix. - "Identification is not convincing" → route to
jpe-identification; add diagnostics/falsification or reframe the claim to what the design supports. - Conflicting referees → flag the conflict to the co-editor and explain the path you chose and why.
Checklist
- Every referee point has an explicit response (none skipped)
- Each "done" response points to the exact revised location
- Disagreements backed by evidence/economic reasoning, framed respectfully
- Co-editor's essential requests all addressed first
- Mechanism / GE / identification demands treated as first-order
- Replication package on track for the JPE Data Editor if a conditional accept follows
- Revisions are actually in the manuscript before the letter is written
- Summary-of-changes table maps comments → locations
- No new claim is over-promised without being delivered
Anti-patterns
- Writing the response letter before doing the revisions
- Skipping or merging referee points to seem responsive
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward a fair criticism
- Conceding a correct result because a referee pushed hard (defend it with evidence)
- Promising "future work" in place of an analysis the editor asked for now
- Ignoring the co-editor's prioritization and treating all comments as equal
Output format
【Decision】R&R / reject-with-encouragement
【Co-editor's essential points】1... 2... 3...
【Per-referee plan】R1: [done / push-back + evidence] ; R2: ... ; R3: ...
【First-order (mechanism/GE/ID)】how addressed
【Revisions complete before letter】[y/n]
【Summary-of-changes table】drafted? [y/n]
【Replication readiness】code ready for JPE Data Editor on accept? [y/n]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Express (jpe-submission for format re-check)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:53
