jais-rebuttal
GitHub用于JAIS期刊修订后撰写逐点回复信。需先根据高级编辑意见修改稿件，再基于实际变更起草回复。强调优先处理编辑关切、解决审稿人冲突及按范式回应质疑，确保回复体现实质性修改而非空头承诺。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jais-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jais-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when a Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS) revision decision has arrived and you must plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — prioritizing the Senior Editor's letter, answering theory- and method-specific concerns in their proper currency, updating the required data materials, and keeping the manuscript within its category budget and double-blind anonymity. Drafts the response after the manuscript is actually revised; interpret the decision first with jais-review-process."
}
Rebuttal & Response Letter (jais-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received a major or minor revision (or a reject-and-resubmit) from JAIS
- You have read the decision with
jais-review-processand revised the manuscript - You need a point-by-point response that the Senior Editor and reviewers can audit
- Reviewers conflict and you must decide which way to revise
Revise first, then write the response
Do not draft the response letter before the manuscript is actually revised. The response is a map to real changes, not a list of promises. For each point, make the change in the manuscript first; the letter then points to where and how. This matters more at JAIS because the process is developmental — the SE is engaging with the paper's trajectory, and an honest, concrete response shows you used the developmental opportunity rather than deflecting it.
Anchor the revision in the Senior Editor's letter
The Senior Editor owns the decision, so the SE's letter sets priorities. Build a triage table: SE-elevated concerns first, then AE and reviewer points, flagging where reviewers conflict. Resolve conflicts in the direction the SE signaled, and say so explicitly when you do. A revision that satisfies every reviewer but misses the SE's central concern fails; a revision that nails the SE's priorities and addresses reviewers proportionately succeeds.
Disagree only with evidence, and only where the SE has not ruled
JAIS's developmental ethos rewards engagement over deference, so you may push back on a reviewer point — but do it on evidence, not rhetoric, and never against a position the Senior Editor has already settled. When two reviewers conflict and the SE has signaled a direction, follow it and explain in the letter that you are resolving the conflict per the editor's guidance. A revision that quietly ignores the SE's call, or that argues with the editor's framing, reads as not having understood the developmental conversation — the fastest way to convert a promising R&R into a rejection.
Answer concerns in the currency of your tradition
JAIS reviewers span paradigms, so a persuasive response speaks the right dialect of rigor.
| Concern raised | A persuasive JAIS response… |
|---|---|
| Theory contribution unclear / incremental | sharpens the new construct or framework, restates the contribution sentence, and shows what the field now knows that it did not |
| Behavioral validity / common-method bias | adds procedural evidence, a marker/method-factor test, or shows interactions survive — not just a Harman test |
| Economics identification | adds placebo/event-study evidence, alternative specifications, sensitivity to the key assumption |
| Design science evaluation | adds baselines, ablations, or a field/expert evaluation tying results to design propositions |
| Qualitative trustworthiness | strengthens the data structure, audit trail, and representative evidence |
Note the first row: at JAIS, a "thin contribution" challenge is answered with theory, not with more robustness checks. Reviewers here will not accept additional analyses as a substitute for a sharpened theoretical payoff.
Update the required data materials
If the revision changes the empirical core, refresh the materials JAIS requires: the correlation/covariance matrix plus descriptives for SEM work, and the anonymized dataset that must be available on request to SEs/reviewers. Note in the letter what you updated.
Keep length, anonymity, and category in check
Revisions grow papers, but JAIS still flags manuscripts over ~15,000 words and will not review beyond 65 pages. Plan offsetting cuts (tighter framing, consolidated exhibits) as part of the revision. Keep the manuscript double-blind — neutral self-citations, no identifying info — while it is still under review, and confirm the revised paper still fits its declared category.
Open the response with a contribution-and-changes summary
Senior Editors at JAIS are reading for whether the paper's trajectory has improved, so open the letter with a short synopsis: restate the sharpened contribution in one sentence, then list the two or three most consequential changes. This frames the point-by-point that follows and lets a developmental SE confirm quickly that you moved the paper where the editorial team hoped. Bury the contribution restatement at the end and you force the editor to reconstruct your logic from scattered replies.
Write a clean, auditable response
- Quote each comment, then give your response and point to the changed page/section.
- Be specific and gracious; disagree only with evidence and a clear rationale, and only when the SE has not already settled the point.
- Summarize the major changes at the top so the SE can see the arc quickly.
- Keep a developmental, collaborative tone that matches the journal's culture.
Checklist
- Manuscript revised before the letter was drafted
- SE-elevated points addressed first; reviewer conflicts resolved per the SE's signal
- A "thin contribution" challenge answered with sharpened theory, not just extra analysis
- Tradition-specific rigor concern answered in its proper currency
- Required data materials (matrix/descriptives, anonymized dataset) updated and referenced
- Revised manuscript within its category budget and ≤65pp; double-blind anonymity preserved
- Every comment quoted, answered, and cross-referenced to a change
- The letter opens with the sharpened contribution and the two or three biggest changes
Anti-patterns
- Drafting the response before making the changes.
- Treating all reviewers as equal and ignoring the SE's prioritization.
- Answering a theory-contribution concern with more robustness tests instead of better theory.
- Letting the revision balloon past the length budget by bolting on appendices.
- Breaking anonymity with "in our revised work" phrasing while still under double-blind review.
Output format
【Journal】Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS)
【Decision being answered】major / minor / reject-and-resubmit
【SE-first triage】ranked changes made
【Contribution response】theory sharpened (not substituted by analysis): yes/fix
【Rigor responses】behavioral / economics / design science / qualitative evidence added
【Data materials updated】matrix/descriptives + anonymized dataset: yes
【Length & anonymity】within budget; double-blind preserved: yes
【Response letter】point-by-point, cross-referenced: ready
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:00
