| name | qe-rebuttal |
| description | Use when a Quantitative Economics (QE) decision letter arrives (R&R or major/conditional revision) and a response strategy and letter are needed. Structures the revision and response; it does not redo the analysis (route to the relevant qe-* skill for that). |
Rebuttal & Revision (qe-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- A QE decision letter arrived: revise-and-resubmit, or a conditional/major revision
- You have referee reports and need a response strategy
- You are unsure how to prioritize conflicting referee demands
- The revised manuscript exists and you need to draft the response letter
QE reality: the coeditor's letter is the contract, and the clock runs ~12 months
At QE a handling coeditor owns the decision and synthesizes the referees (often including an Associate Editor). The coeditor's letter ranks the issues — it tells you which referee points are binding and which are optional; read it first and let it set priorities. Revise offers are normally valid for 12 months, so plan the analysis, estimation, and reproducibility work against that window rather than rushing a thin resubmission. Because QE is the empirical/quantitative ES journal, expect referees to probe identification, estimation, robustness, and reproducibility specifically — keep the public-posting and replication obligations in view as you revise.
Triage protocol
- Decode the coeditor. A point the coeditor underscores is binding; a point only one referee raised and the coeditor ignored is lower priority (still answer it).
- Classify every comment. Tag each: fundamental (must add/redo analysis or estimation), clarification (rewrite/explain), or disagreement (you will push back, politely, with evidence).
- Sequence the work. Do the analysis first — route fundamentals to
qe-identification-strategy, qe-data-analysis, or qe-tables-figures; update the replication package via qe-replication-and-data-policy; then write the letter.
- Settle it with a check, not a fight. If a robustness check, an added moment, or a Monte Carlo settles the point, run it; reserve disagreement for where the referee is genuinely mistaken.
Response-letter structure
- Opening: thank the coeditor and referees; summarize the main changes in a short paragraph.
- Point-by-point: quote each comment, then respond — what you did + where in the revised paper it now appears (section/table/figure/page).
- Disagreements: state the referee's point fairly, then give the evidence-based reason you respectfully differ; offer a compromise (e.g., add to the Supplemental Appendix, ≤25 pages) where possible.
- Reproducibility: note any changes to data/code so the eventual ES Data Editor check stays clean.
- Tone: gracious, concrete, never defensive.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Writing the response letter before the manuscript reflects the changes
- Promising future work instead of doing the analysis within the ~12-month window
- Arguing where an added moment / robustness check / Monte Carlo would settle it
- Letting the replication package drift out of sync with the revised results
- Defensive or curt tone; treating reports as attacks rather than help
The three QE pushbacks and what actually closes them
These are the recurring quantitative complaints at QE; each is closed by a specific, runnable response — not by prose.
| Referee complaint | The closing move |
|---|
| "Structural estimates are not credibly identified" | add a sensitivity matrix + Monte Carlo recovery; report untargeted-moment fit |
| "Numerical accuracy is not validated" | report tolerances and a grid-refinement check; show headline stability |
| "Quantitative results not robust to specification" | re-estimate under alternative moments/sub-samples; tabulate the movement |
Worked vignette: triaging a QE major-revision letter (illustrative)
Suppose the coeditor underscores Referee 1's identification concern, treats Referee 2's request for a robustness table as binding, and notes Referee 3's framing quibble as optional. Triage: tag identification fundamental (run the sensitivity matrix, route to qe-identification-strategy), tag the robustness table fundamental (re-estimate across three moment sets), tag the framing clarification (a paragraph rewrite). Suppose the headline elasticity moves from 0.42 to 0.39 (s.e. 0.05) across specifications — report that explicitly; a stable number under scrutiny is the strongest rebuttal. (Numbers illustrative.) Only after the manuscript reflects all three do you write the point-by-point letter with exact section/table locations.
Output format
【Decision】R&R / major / conditional
【Coeditor's binding points】[...]
【Comment classification】fundamental: [...] / clarification: [...] / disagreement: [...]
【Analysis routed to】qe-identification-strategy / qe-data-analysis / qe-tables-figures
【Letter status】point-by-point with locations? [Y/N]
【Reproducibility synced】package + posting updated? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via the ES portal (qe-submission for file checks)
