| name | jae-rebuttal |
| description | Use when planning revisions and drafting the point-by-point response for a Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE) revise-and-resubmit — prioritizing the editor's identification and contribution concerns, satisfying economics-trained reviewers with new tests, and noting that resubmissions carry no submission fee. |
R&R Revision & Response for JAE (jae-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received a JAE revise-and-resubmit and must plan the revision
- Reviewers demand additional identification, mechanism, or robustness tests
- You need to write the point-by-point response letter
- You are unsure how to reconcile conflicting reviewer requests
Revise before you write the letter
Do the empirical and theoretical work first; the response letter documents revisions already made, not promises. At JAE the binding hierarchy is: the Editor's letter first (the contribution framing and the identification that must hold), then each reviewer point. Where the editor and a reviewer conflict, follow the editor and explain the resolution courteously.
Prioritize what JAE referees care about
Because the decision rests on economic mechanism and identification, allocate effort accordingly:
- Identification challenges: add the natural experiment, instrument, placebo, or pre-trend evidence the referee wants; if a clean design is impossible, bound the bias and argue robustness honestly.
- Mechanism: add cross-sectional partitions showing the effect concentrates where the economic friction is severe — often the single most persuasive response.
- Alternative explanations: test them empirically rather than dismissing them in prose.
- Measurement: re-run with alternative proxies (accruals, conservatism, information-asymmetry measures) to show results are not proxy-driven.
Writing the point-by-point response
- Reproduce each comment verbatim, then give your response and point to the exact revised text, table, or new analysis (with page/table numbers).
- Be specific and evidence-based; show the new result rather than asserting robustness.
- Be respectful and concise — economics referees value directness; do not argue past a fair point, and concede gracefully when the referee is right.
- Summarize the major changes in a cover letter to the editor up front.
Practical notes
- Resubmissions carry no submission fee at JAE (the USD 650 fee applies only to unsolicited new manuscripts) — revise thoroughly rather than rushing.
- Keep the manuscript double-anonymized; do not unmask authorship in the response or new acknowledgments.
- Track changes or a marked-up copy if the editor requests it; keep the clean version submission-ready.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Promising changes instead of making them.
- Arguing with the referee rather than addressing the concern.
- Cosmetic robustness that does not engage the identification challenge.
- Ignoring the editor's letter while answering reviewers.
- Unmasking authorship in the response or new acknowledgments.
Response pass for Journal of Accounting and Economics
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the economic mechanism, accounting setting, identification or model, and market/contracting consequence; then test whether the manuscript addresses accounting-economics reviewers who expect economics discipline, identification, and market or contracting implications.
- Primary move: Separate editor-order changes from referee-specific changes; answer each major objection with manuscript edits plus a short evidence citation.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- Neighbor test: compare against JAR for accounting research breadth, TAR for accounting flagship breadth, Review of Accounting Studies for archival/accounting focus; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Editor priorities addressed】identification / contribution framing ...
【Per-reviewer responses】comment → revision → pointer (page/table)
【New analyses added】design / mechanism partition / robustness
【Conflicts resolved】editor-favored, explained
【Cover letter summary】major changes
【Status】ready to resubmit (no fee) / pending tests
