Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› tar-rebuttal
tar-rebuttal
GitHub用于起草《会计评论》(TAR) 修改重投的回复信。针对编辑和审稿人的意见提供逐点回应，涵盖识别、贡献和数据真实性要求。需在修订完成后撰写，遵循特定结构，保持尊重语气，并严格遵守55页篇幅限制。
Trigger Scenarios
收到 TAR R&R 决定并已规划修订方案
已完成稿件和代码修改，需撰写回复文档
需要协调冲突的审稿人意见供编辑裁决
后续轮次要求辩护或进一步修订先前改动
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill tar-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "tar-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when drafting the revision and response letter after a The Accounting Review (TAR) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the editor and the (minimum two) reviewers across a multi-round developmental process, including identification, contribution, and data-authenticity demands. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (tar-review-process)."
}
R&R Response & Rebuttal (tar-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received a TAR R&R and have planned the revision (via
tar-review-process) - You have made (or scoped) the manuscript and code changes and need to write the response document
- You must reconcile conflicting reviewer demands for the editor to adjudicate
- A later-round decision asks you to defend or further revise prior changes
Write the response after revising the manuscript and the code, not before — the letter documents changes you have made, not promises. TAR's process is developmental and typically multi-round; resubmit the revised manuscript and response through Editorial Manager (editorialmanager.com/accr), keep anonymity intact, and remember the revised submission still respects the 55-page budget (references, tables, figures, appendices included).
Response-document structure
- Opening letter to the editor. Thank the editor and reviewers; summarize the most important changes in 2–4 sentences; explicitly state how you addressed the editor's stated priorities. Note where reviewers conflicted and how you resolved it.
- Per-reviewer sections. For each reviewer (a minimum of two), restate every comment verbatim or faithfully numbered, then respond.
- Point-by-point format for each comment:
- Comment (quoted/numbered)
- Response (what you did and the economic/econometric reasoning)
- Location (section/page/table where the change appears)
- Quote new manuscript text where helpful.
How to respond to TAR's signature demands
- "Identification is not clean." Add or strengthen the design — pre-trends/dynamic effects, a
better instrument, a placebo/falsification test, an alternative shock, or a robustness battery —
and explain why it resolves the threat (see
tar-methods,tar-data-analysis). Do not argue the endogeneity away in prose alone. - "The contribution is incremental." Sharpen what the accounting field learns and reconcile with
the conflicting prior results; revise the contribution sentences, not just citations (see
tar-contribution-framing,tar-literature-positioning). - "Show the data are authentic / share the code." Provide the data description and processing computer code for public databases, the abstraction methodology plus code for abstracted data, or sufficient detail / corroborating parties for private data — this is a TAR requirement, not a courtesy.
- "Add a test / robustness." An additional specification, partition, or (for behavioral work) a follow-up experiment that nails the mechanism is often decisive — but watch the 55-page budget; heavy new material usually lives in an online appendix so the main body stays within limit.
Tone and tactics
- Be respectful and substantive. Reviewers are colleagues investing in your paper; engage seriously even when disagreeing.
- Concede gracefully where they are right; make the change.
- Disagree with evidence, not assertion. If you decline a request, give an economic/empirical reason and, where possible, an alternative analysis showing robustness.
- Address every point. A non-trivial point left unanswered reads as evasion and can sink a round.
- Surface conflicts to the editor. When reviewers ask for opposite things, explain the trade-off and your chosen resolution for the editor to adjudicate.
- Preserve anonymity in the resubmission and keep the revised files reproducible.
Checklist
- Manuscript and code actually revised before the letter was written
- Editor's priorities addressed first and explicitly in the opening letter
- Every reviewer comment (min. two reviewers) restated and answered (none skipped)
- Each response names the location of the change and quotes new text where useful
- Identification and contribution demands met with real changes, not citations only
- Data-authenticity / code-access requests satisfied per data type
- Declined requests justified with evidence and an alternative test where possible
- Reviewer conflicts surfaced and resolved for the editor; 55-page budget respected
Anti-patterns
- Writing the response before making the changes (or before updating the code).
- Skipping or burying an inconvenient comment.
- Answering "we added a citation" to a "deepen the contribution" or "fix identification" request.
- Arguing endogeneity away in prose with no new test.
- Declining a request by assertion ("we believe this is fine") with no evidence.
- Silently siding with one reviewer when two conflict, leaving the editor to discover it.
Output format
【Decision round】1st R&R / 2nd round / ...
【Editor priorities addressed】1... 2... 3...
【Per-reviewer coverage】R1: x/x comments, R2: x/x (+R3 if any) — all answered? yes/no
【Major changes】identification: ... contribution: ... new test/study: ...
【Data authenticity】code/description provided per data type? yes/no
【Declined requests + justification】...
【Reviewer conflicts resolved】...
【Budget】revised main body ≤ 55 pages? overflow → online appendix
【Next step】resubmit via Editorial Manager; on next decision → tar-review-process
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:29
