ectheory-rebuttal
GitHub用于应对计量理论期刊的修改重投决定，指导处理审稿人关于证明和假设的挑战。通过分类评论、优先修复数学缺陷、利用补充材料，并撰写逐点回复信，确保回应严谨且符合期刊要求。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ectheory-rebuttal -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ectheory-rebuttal",
"description": "Use when an Econometric Theory (ET) decision letter arrives and a response strategy and letter are needed — handling proof-checking referee objections, fixing assumptions and gaps, and using the online Supplement, then writing a point-by-point response. It structures the revision, not the proofs themselves."
}
Rebuttal & Revision (ectheory-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- An ET decision letter arrived: revise-and-resubmit, or major/conditional revision
- You have referee reports challenging assumptions, proof steps, or generality
- You are unsure how to prioritize conflicting referee demands
- The revised manuscript exists and you need to draft the response letter
ET reality: theory referees challenge the proof
At a theorem-proof journal the referees are checking your mathematics, not your causal story. The handling editor's letter sets priorities; under the editorial leadership from 1 January 2026 (Guggenberger, Su, Sun), expect demanding technical review. Because review is single-anonymous, the referees already know who you are — keep responses on the merits.
Triage protocol
- Decode the editor. The editor's letter ranks the issues. A point the editor underscores is binding; address it fully this round.
- Classify every comment. Tag each: fundamental (a gap, an unjustified assumption, an incorrect limit claim — requires new math), clarification (rewrite/explain the assumption or step), or disagreement (you will push back, with a precise counter-argument or counterexample).
- Sequence the work. Fix the math first (route fundamentals to
ectheory-identification-strategyfor assumptions/proofs,ectheory-data-analysisfor simulations), update exhibits, then write the letter. - Use the Supplement. If closing a gap adds long derivations, move them to the online Supplementary Material (already-reviewed, separate labeled file) so the Article stays under 50 pages — but the new derivations must now have been reviewed before final posting.
Response-letter structure
- Opening: thank the editor and referees; summarize the main changes in a short paragraph.
- Point-by-point: quote each comment, then respond. Each response = what you changed (weakened assumption, filled step, added lemma, new simulation) + the exact location (theorem/ lemma/section/page) in the revised paper.
- Disagreements: state the referee's point fairly, then give a precise mathematical reason you differ — ideally a counterexample, a citation, or a corrected derivation — not rhetoric.
- Tone: gracious, concrete, mathematically specific.
Checklist
- Editor's binding points decoded and answered fully
- Every comment classified (fundamental / clarification / disagreement)
- All fundamental objections resolved with actual math (closed gaps, fixed assumptions), not promises
- Each response cites the exact theorem/lemma/section/page of the change
- Disagreements settled with a counterexample/derivation/citation, not assertion
- New long derivations placed in the Supplement; Article still <=50 pages
- Tone gracious and precise; no new overclaim introduced
Anti-patterns
- Writing the response letter before the manuscript's proofs actually reflect the fixes
- Promising to "address in future work" a gap the referee identified
- Hand-waving a disputed step instead of giving a counterexample or corrected proof
- Defensive tone treating a proof-check as an attack
- Letting a fix push the Article past 50 pages instead of using the Supplement
Mapping referee objections to the venue-specific fix
At a theorem-proof journal the report is a proof check, so each objection maps to a concrete mathematical remedy, not a rhetorical reply.
| Referee objection | Class | The ET fix this round |
|---|---|---|
| "Conditions too strong / not primitive" | fundamental | primitive moment+dependence pair; show high-level version follows |
| "Rate stated, no distribution theory" | fundamental | add the limiting law (mode, normalizer, functional) with the argument |
| "Hard step (uniformity) sketched" | fundamental | isolate as a named lemma with full proof; overflow to Supplement |
| "Result is a special case of [X]" | disagreement | counter with the dimension you relax, or concede and reframe |
Promising to "address in future work" a gap the referee identified is the classic way to turn a revise-and-resubmit into a reject — close it with real math this round.
Worked vignette and the disagreement protocol
A referee objects that the proof assumes finite eighth moments where finite fourth should suffice. The fix: re-derive the variance bound via a maximal inequality needing only fourth moments, add the weakened condition as the new Assumption, and verify it in the DGP. The entry reads: "We have weakened Assumption 2 to finite fourth moments (p. 7), re-proving the key bound via a maximal inequality (new Lemma 3, Supplement S.2)." What changed, the new lemma, the exact location — that is what the editor scans for. Settle disagreements with a counterexample, a corrected derivation, or a citation, never assertion; keep every response anchored to a theorem, lemma, section, or page.
Output format
【Decision】R&R / major / conditional
【Editor's binding points】[...]
【Classification】fundamental: [...] / clarification: [...] / disagreement: [...]
【Math routed to】ectheory-identification-strategy / ectheory-data-analysis (as needed)
【Letter】point-by-point with exact locations? [Y/N]
【Supplement used】overflow derivations moved, Article <=50pp? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit the single PDF via ScholarOne (ectheory-submission for file checks)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:51
