| name | asq-rebuttal |
| description | Use when drafting the response to an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) R&R after the manuscript has been revised — structuring the response letter and handling reviewer/editor comments. Drafts the response; it does not perform the underlying revisions (do those first). |
R&R Rebuttal (asq-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You have an ASQ R&R and have already revised the manuscript
- You need to structure a point-by-point response document
- Reviewers disagree and you must navigate between them without contradicting yourself
Revise the paper first. The response letter documents changes you made; it is not a substitute for making them. If you have not revised yet, return to the relevant asq-* skill.
Mindset for an ASQ revision
ASQ's review is developmental — treat reviewers as collaborators who took the idea seriously. The winning posture is gracious, responsive, and intellectually serious: accommodate where they are right, and where you disagree, argue with evidence and respect rather than dismissal. The central question the handling editor (under Editor Beth Bechky, term began July 1, 2025) and reviewers will ask is "did the idea mature?" — consistent with ASQ's emphasis on curating papers that will endure. Foreground how the contribution got deeper, not just which boxes you ticked. A response letter that reads as a checklist of mechanical robustness additions — adequate at some quantitative-leaning journals — will underperform here if the theoretical insight has not sharpened.
Structure of the response
- Cover note to the editor. Thank the team; summarize the 3–5 most important changes and how the contribution is now sharper. Address the editor's central theoretical ask explicitly and up front.
- Point-by-point responses, grouped by reviewer, then by comment. For each:
- Quote the comment verbatim (or faithfully paraphrase).
- State your response: Accepted / Partially accepted / Respectfully disagree.
- Describe the exact change and cite the new location (page, section, table).
- Where you disagree, give the reasoned case with evidence, and offer a compromise if possible.
- A summary of major changes at the top is helpful for editors tracking a multi-round file.
Handling hard cases
- Reviewers disagree: state both positions, explain your resolution, and let the editor see you reasoned it through. Do not silently side with one and ignore the other.
- A request would harm the paper: explain why (theoretical or evidentiary cost), propose an alternative that meets the underlying concern, and defer to the editor.
- "Deepen the contribution": this is the most common ASQ ask — show concretely how the theory is now sharper, the surprise clearer, the mechanism more specified. Mechanical additions alone will not satisfy it.
- Out-of-scope requests: politely note scope and, if useful, flag them as future work.
Tone and craft
- Respectful, specific, and confident — never defensive or dismissive.
- Make the editor's job easy: clear navigation, change locations, and a quotable summary.
- Keep the letter self-contained; a reviewer should not need the tracked-changes file to follow it.
- Ensure consistency: a change made for Reviewer 1 must not contradict a response to Reviewer 2.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Writing the response before actually revising
- Defensive or dismissive replies ("the reviewer misunderstood")
- Claiming a change was made without pointing to where
- Satisfying one reviewer in a way that contradicts another's response
- Answering "deepen the contribution" with cosmetic additions
- A letter that requires the editor to diff the manuscript to verify changes
Output format
【Round】1st / 2nd / later
【Editor's core ask addressed】how + where
【Comments handled】N / N (none skipped)
【Disagreements】[...] + evidence/compromise
【Contribution deepened】how the idea matured
【Consistency check】no cross-reviewer contradictions
【Next step】resubmit via the editorial system
