| name | jme-rebuttal |
| description | Use after a Journal of Monetary Economics (JME) revise-and-resubmit to plan the response letter and revision — given JME's distinctive "up or out" rule (the resubmission ends in acceptance or rejection, no second R&R) and the ~50% publication-likelihood signal an R&R carries. |
R&R Rebuttal Strategy (jme-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- A JME decision letter invited a revise-and-resubmit
- You are drafting the response-to-referees letter and the revision plan
- You need to prioritize which referee points are make-or-break
What an R&R means at JME
An R&R at JME is a strong signal — editors invite a resubmission only when they judge at least a 50% likelihood of ultimate publication. But it is not a green light to iterate forever. The defining rule is "up or out": the resubmission must result in acceptance or rejection — there is no second round of revise-and-resubmit. Your one revision has to fully resolve the editors' and (typically two) referees' concerns. Treat every substantive comment as decision-relevant; an unaddressed major point can flip the outcome to reject because there is no further round to fix it.
Because review is single anonymized (referees know who you are), keep the tone collegial and precise, and address each referee directly.
Building the response
- Triage: separate make-or-break concerns (identification of the shock, the information-effect critique, a disputed SVAR ordering, a DSGE identification or fit problem) from cosmetic ones. The make-or-break set must be fully resolved, not deflected.
- Point-by-point: reproduce each comment, state what you changed, and point to the exact revised table/figure/section (and the online supplement where robustness lives).
- New analysis goes to the supplement: added robustness, alternative identification, and derivations belong in the online supplementary appendix (exempt from the 40-page cap), with the headline result kept in the ≤10 main exhibits.
- Disagree carefully: if you decline a request, give a substantive macro/econometric reason — but under "up or out," concede rather than fight on anything the editor flagged.
- Mind the cap: a revision can balloon; keep the main text under 40 pages and ≤10 exhibits, moving everything else online.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Treating the R&R as one of several rounds (it is up or out — no second R&R)
- Deflecting a major identification critique with a footnote
- Letting the revised paper exceed 40 pages / 10 exhibits instead of using the supplement
- A defensive, combative tone toward referees who can see your identity
Response pass for Journal of Monetary Economics
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the main macro object, the identifying variation, and the policy-relevant counterfactual; then test whether the manuscript addresses macro and monetary economists who expect the shock, mechanism, and policy margin to be visible early.
- 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 JIE for open-economy trade/finance emphasis, RED for dynamic macro theory, AEJ Macro for broader field positioning; 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
【Decision】R&R (⇒ ~50% likelihood; next decision is accept or reject)
【Make-or-break points】[list — must be fully resolved]
【Minor points】[list]
【New analysis location】online supplement (body ≤40pp / ≤10 exhibits)
【Tone】collegial, point-by-point
【Next step】submit the single "up or out" revision
