| name | jmcb-rebuttal |
| description | Use when a Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (JMCB) decision letter or referee report has arrived and you need a response-letter strategy and revision plan. Turns the reports into a prioritized, point-by-point rebuttal; it does not re-run the core analysis or re-write the paper. |
Rebuttal Strategy (jmcb-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- A JMCB R&R or reject-and-resubmit letter arrived and you need a response plan
- Two referees disagree (e.g., one wants a structural model, the other wants reduced-form transparency) and you must reconcile them
- The editor's letter prioritizes some points over others and you need to honor that hierarchy
- A report demands analysis that touches identification or measurement and you must decide what is feasible
Reading the JMCB decision letter
At JMCB the editor's letter is the governing document — it tells you which referee points are binding, which are advisory, and what the bar for the next round is. Read it first and let it set priorities; do not weight all referee comments equally. Note the decision type: an R&R asks for a revision under the same desk; a reject-and-resubmit (sometimes after a no-fee resubmission window) is a fresh start that still benefits from addressing the prior reports. Confirm the resubmission fee status (resubmissions of invited revisions are typically fee-exempt — 待核实).
Building the response
- Open with a brief summary of the main changes and the new evidence, so the editor sees the revision's shape before the point-by-point.
- Point-by-point, quoting each comment, then: (a) what you changed, (b) where (section/table/figure number), (c) the result. Make it trivial for the referee to verify.
- Triage every comment into: fully addressed (new analysis), addressed in text (argument/clarification), or respectfully pushed back (with evidence, never with attitude).
- Reconcile conflicting referees explicitly — name the tension, explain the choice, and where possible satisfy both (e.g., keep the reduced-form headline and add the model in the appendix).
- For identification/measurement demands, show the new diagnostic and report whether the headline moved; transparency about a small change is more persuasive than insisting nothing changed.
- Track magnitudes across the revision — if a new specification shifts the elasticity, say by how much and why the conclusion survives.
Handling the characteristic JMCB asks
- "Your shock is contaminated." → Add the info-robust re-identification (Jarociński–Karadi); show the IRF is similar; cite
jmcb-identification.
- "This is credit demand, not supply." → Add firm×time fixed effects (or single-vs-multi-bank split); report the supply coefficient.
- "What disciplines your parameters / is the counterfactual policy-invariant?" → Add the parameter-to-moment map and the Lucas-critique argument.
- "So what for policy?" → Sharpen the policy lever in the intro and conclusion; benchmark the magnitude.
- "It's too long." → Move supporting material to the online appendix (see
jmcb-internet-appendix); the 40-page recommendation excludes it.
Tone and format that referees reward
- Respect the hierarchy. Address the editor's emphasized points first and most thoroughly; do not let a minor referee-3 stylistic note get equal airtime with a binding identification objection.
- Quote-then-respond, every time. Reproduce each comment verbatim in a distinct font/block, then respond beneath it. Referees skim for their own comments; make them findable.
- Point to the manuscript by number. "We now report this in Table 5, columns 3–4" lets a referee verify in seconds; "we have addressed this" forces a re-read of the whole paper.
- Concede gracefully where right. A referee who is correct should be thanked and accommodated; saved face costs you nothing and buys goodwill for the points where you push back.
- Push back with evidence, never with attitude. When a referee is wrong, show why with a result or citation, in measured language. Defensiveness reads as weakness.
Deciding what is feasible
Not every demand is worth meeting. For each costly ask (a new structural model, restricted data you cannot obtain, a redesign), weigh: is it binding per the editor, how much does it strengthen the paper, and is it attainable? If a demand is infeasible (restricted data access denied) or misguided, say so plainly with the reason, and offer the closest feasible substitute (e.g., a public-data approximation, a bounding exercise). An honest "here is why we cannot do exactly that, and here is what we did instead" is more persuasive than silence or a half-measure dressed as compliance.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Treating all referee comments as equal weight, ignoring the editor's prioritization
- Pushing back on a binding point without new evidence — or with a defensive tone
- Claiming "no change to results" after re-identification without showing the new estimate
- Quietly dropping a referee's objection instead of addressing or respectfully declining it
- Letting two referees' contradictory demands stall the revision instead of reconciling them in writing
- Padding the main text back over 40 pages with material that belongs in the appendix
Pace and the resubmission window
A JMCB R&R does not reward speed for its own sake — it rewards a revision that visibly closes the binding points. But a long silence risks reviewer turnover and a colder reread. Aim to return within the editor's expected window with every binding point demonstrably addressed; if a demanded analysis (restricted-data access, a new structural model) will take longer, it is worth a brief note to the editor rather than missing the window with a half-revision. Confirm the resubmission fee status before resubmitting (invited revisions are typically fee-exempt — 待核实) and re-run the jmcb-submission preflight, since page count and exhibits often drift during a revision.
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A JMCB R&R has the editor flagging two binding points: shock contamination (referee 1) and demand contamination (referee 2). The response opens by summarizing both fixes, then, point-by-point, shows the info-robust IRF (peak −1.8% vs. −2.0% before, illustrative) and the firm×quarter-FE supply coefficient. Referee 3's request for a full structural model conflicts with referee 1's preference for transparency; the authors reconcile by keeping the reduced-form headline and adding a calibrated banking model in the appendix as corroboration. The letter makes every change verifiable by table number, and the small magnitude change is reported, not hidden.
A response-letter structure that works
Open with a one-paragraph summary of the main changes and any new results, so the editor sees the revision's shape at a glance. Then take each referee in turn, reproducing every comment verbatim and answering beneath it with the change, the location by table/section number, and the result. Close each referee's section by noting any of their points you respectfully declined and why. Keep a parallel "changes to the manuscript" list if the editor requests one. The letter should let a busy editor confirm, in a single read, that every binding point is closed — that perception, as much as the analysis itself, drives the next decision.
Output format
【Journal】Journal of Money, Credit and Banking
【Skill】jmcb-rebuttal
【Decision type】R&R / reject-and-resubmit; editor's priority order
【Binding vs advisory】which referee points govern the next round
【Point-by-point】comment → change → location (section/table) → result
【Triage】fully addressed / addressed in text / respectful pushback
【Conflicts reconciled】how contradictory referee demands were squared
【Magnitude tracking】any headline movement reported honestly
【Next step】revise; re-run jmcb-submission preflight before resubmitting
