| name | jmr-rebuttal |
| description | Use when a Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) Revise-and-Resubmit arrives — planning the revision and drafting a point-by-point response that satisfies two independent reviewers and the Coeditor, addresses rigor-bar concerns (identification, exact statistics, replication) and substance-bar concerns (contribution), and uses the 'W'-prefixed Web Appendix to absorb new analyses without breaking the 50-page limit. |
R&R Revision & Response (jmr-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received a JMR R&R and need to plan revisions and the response letter
- Reviewers and the Coeditor raise concerns spanning rigor and contribution
- New studies/analyses are needed but the print paper is near the 50-page limit
- You must reconcile conflicting reviewer requests
Plan before you draft
- Triage every point by which bar it targets — rigor (identification, manipulation, exact p-values/SEs/effect sizes, robustness, replication) or substance (contribution, framing, "what do we learn?"). JMR's dual standard means both must end up satisfied.
- Find the Coeditor's priorities. The editor's letter signals which concerns are pivotal; weight your effort there. With two independent reviewers, expect some conflict — resolve it explicitly rather than splitting the difference silently.
- Decide where new material lives. New robustness, additional studies, and estimation detail usually belong in the 'W'-prefixed Web Appendix (excluded from the 50-page limit), with a short pointer in the print text — this lets you respond fully without blowing the page budget.
Draft the point-by-point response
- Reproduce each comment verbatim, then respond directly beneath it.
- For each: state what you changed, where (section / page / "Table W3 in the Web Appendix"), and why it resolves the concern.
- For rigor points: run the requested test, report exact p-values (three digits), standard errors, and effect sizes in AMA number style, and add the supporting exhibit (main text or Web Appendix).
- For substance points: sharpen the contribution sentences (see
jmr-contribution-framing); if a new study is needed to establish the mechanism or generalizability, run it and report it.
- Where you disagree, do so respectfully with evidence — JMR reviewers are domain experts; a reasoned, data-backed pushback is acceptable when the editor's framing allows.
- Reconcile conflicting reviewer requests openly: explain the trade-off and the choice, and let the editor adjudicate.
Keep conformance intact
- Re-check the 50-page limit after additions; move overflow to the Web Appendix.
- Keep the Web Appendix a single PDF with 'W'-prefixed exhibits; update the Data Availability Statement and AI disclosure if methods changed.
- Maintain double-anonymization in the revised manuscript and response letter.
Rigor/substance response ledger
Track each reviewer item in a ledger before writing the letter:
| Comment | Bar | Revision evidence | Location |
|---|
| Identification, mediation, robustness, exact stats, replication | Rigor | New estimate, diagnostic, p/SE/effect-size correction, or deposit update | Main text or Table W# |
| Contribution, theory, managerial relevance, scope | Substance | Revised contribution sentence, new boundary condition, clearer managerial implication | Introduction, discussion, or study rationale |
| Conflicting request | Editor arbitration | Chosen path and why it preserves rigor/substance | Cover note plus response entry |
The ledger should reveal whether the revision is balanced. A response that fixes all rigor points but leaves the "what do we learn?" objection untouched is still at risk; a response that improves framing but leaves exact-statistics or replication gaps is also not ready.
Anti-patterns
- A response letter written before the manuscript is actually revised.
- Cosmetic replies ("we have addressed this") with no concrete change or location.
- Letting new analyses push the print paper over 50 pages instead of using the Web Appendix.
- Capitulating to a reviewer in a way that breaks identification or over-claims.
- Reporting added results with thresholds/asterisks instead of exact statistics.
- Treating rigor and substance as separate reviewer silos instead of satisfying both in the revised claim.
Output format
[Target] JMR
[Decision round] R&R #
[Per-comment plan] bar (rigor/substance) → change → location (main / Table Wx)
[Response ledger] all comments mapped to rigor/substance evidence
[Conflicts] reviewer A vs B → resolution + editor adjudication
[New material] Web Appendix additions; 50-page check
[Conformance] DAS / AI disclosure / anonymization updated
[Next step] resubmit → jmr-review-process
Resources
