ectj-rebuttal
GitHub用于起草Econometrics Journal的回复信及修订计划。涵盖区分计量有效性、处理证明与模拟证据、应对20页篇幅限制、规划重投时间及满足复制包要求，确保回复精准且符合期刊规范。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ectj-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ectj-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when drafting a The Econometrics Journal response letter and revision plan after a referee report, especially for assumptions, proofs, Monte Carlo evidence, empirical application, 20-page compression, resubmission timing, and replication-package conditions."
}
EctJ Rebuttal
Use this after an EctJ decision letter. Reopen the decision letter, RES review-process page, and current author instructions before setting deadlines.
Response strategy
- Separate econometric-validity issues from exposition, simulation, application, and replication issues.
- Answer assumption and proof objections with exact theorem, lemma, or appendix changes.
- If a referee asks for broader treatment, decide whether it belongs in the printed paper, online supplement, or a clearly scoped limitation.
- Add Monte Carlo or empirical checks only when they resolve a decision-critical concern.
- Preserve compactness; an R&R that bloats beyond the EctJ page discipline can create a new conformance problem.
- Track the RES resubmission clock; the source map records normal windows of one month and sometimes three months.
Revision triage
Classify each requested change before writing:
- Validity-critical: assumptions, theorem statements, proof gaps, estimator definition, simulation design. These must be fixed in the manuscript and cross-referenced in the response.
- Applied-value-critical: application too decorative, weak comparison, missing practical diagnostic. Add only the smallest table or paragraph that proves use value.
- Compression-risk: requests for extra cases, literature, or robustness that would break the printed-paper discipline. Move noncritical material to supplement or explain why it is outside scope.
- Replication-risk: code, seeds, data access, or package layout. Fix in the archive and cite the file path.
The response letter should show that the leading case is now stronger, not just longer.
Response evidence rule
For every major comment, attach exactly one evidence object: theorem change, proof fix, simulation result, application table, compression decision, or replication-file update. If a response has no evidence object, it is probably only reassurance and should be strengthened before resubmission.
EctJ pushback patterns and venue-specific fixes
| Referee pushback | What it signals at EctJ | Fix that closes it |
|---|---|---|
| "Asymptotic results carry no finite-sample evidence" | Theory-simulation contract broken | Add the one coverage or size panel that pairs with the contested theorem, summarized within the main-text page norm |
| "Simulation DGPs are detached from the empirical illustration" | Applied-value claim looks decorative | Re-anchor one DGP to parameters estimated from the application data and say so in the design preamble |
| "The leading case is too special to matter" | Scope guardrail read as a defect | Show the leading case covers the application class; add a remark stating what an extension would require |
| "Why is this proof only in the online appendix?" | Proof-placement conformance risk | Move the derivation into the printed appendix and re-verify the 20-page budget |
| "Code did not reproduce Table 3" | Replication credibility, decisive after conditional acceptance | Rerun the package, fix seeds or versions, cite the exact script in the response |
Worked response fragment
Illustrative numbers: a referee writes that the proposed test's size is untrustworthy with few clusters. A strong EctJ response does four things in four sentences: concede the gap ("the original design only simulated 30 or more clusters"), report new evidence ("at 8 clusters the test rejects 5.6% at nominal 5%, versus 12.9% for the incumbent; new Table 2, rows 1-2"), tie it to the theorem ("consistent with Proposition 2's symmetric leading case"), and protect the page budget ("the full grid moved to Supplement S3"). Evidence, theorem, location — nothing else.
Resubmission clock triage
- Map each validity-critical fix to the clock first: a new proof usually fits the normal one-month window, while a new simulation arm or application re-estimation often needs the longer window — ask the editorial office early rather than overrunning silently.
- Re-verify conformance after revising: added material at this venue can push the printed paper past the page norm and convert a scientific R&R into a format failure.
- If the decision letter touches the replication package, treat the rerun as part of the response, not as post-acceptance housekeeping.
Output format
[Decision] R&R / conditional acceptance / reject-resubmit / other
[Revision thesis] <one sentence>
[Major issues] <assumptions/proofs/simulations/application/replication>
[Response draft] <point-by-point structure>
[Compression guardrail] <what must not grow>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:30
