| name | eer-rebuttal |
| description | Use when a European Economic Review (EER) decision letter arrives (R&R or reject-with-appeal grounds) and a response strategy and letter are needed. Plans the revision and drafts the point-by-point response; it does not run new estimation or rewrite the whole paper. |
Rebuttal & Response Letter (eer-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- An EER R&R (major or minor) arrived and you need a revision plan + response letter
- Referee reports conflict and you must triage what to do
- You are weighing a formal appeal of a reject (one appeal per submission)
- You need to convert reports into a credible, point-by-point response
The EER revision reality
EER decisions are accept / R&R (major or minor) / reject, with desk rejects possible without review. Under single-anonymized review the referees know who you are — the response must be professional, complete, and non-defensive. The editor decides; referees advise. A successful R&R does the substantive work the reports ask for, documents it transparently, and makes the editor's re-read easy. EER permits one formal appeal per submission (Elsevier appeal policy; the decision is final) — reserve it for a clear factual/process error, not disagreement with judgment.
Building the response
1. Triage the reports
- Sort every comment into: must-do (identification/robustness/credibility), should-do (clarity, added test), discuss-only (out-of-scope or contradicting another referee).
- Flag conflicts between referees and let the editor see you handled both fairly.
- Identify the one or two objections that gate acceptance and over-deliver on those.
2. Do the substantive work first
- Re-run identification/robustness the reports demand (
eer-identification, eer-robustness) before writing the letter.
- If you decline a request, give a reasoned, evidenced decline — never a flat refusal.
3. Draft the point-by-point letter
- Quote each comment, then respond; state what changed and where (section/table/page).
- Lead each response with the action taken, then the explanation.
- Keep a respectful, collegial tone; thank referees for specific improvements.
- Add a summary of major changes at the top for the editor.
4. Keep the paper coherent
- Ensure revisions do not break the narrative; re-check abstract/intro/highlights (
eer-writing-style).
- Update the replication package if results changed (
eer-replication-package).
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A defensive letter that argues with referees instead of addressing them
- Claiming "we have addressed this" without pointing to the concrete change
- Cherry-picking easy comments and ignoring the hard, acceptance-gating one
- Letting two referees' conflicting demands go unreconciled for the editor
- Filing an appeal over a judgment disagreement (appeals are for clear errors; decision is final)
- Changing results without updating the replication package or the affected exhibits
Worked vignette (illustrative)
An R&R has three reports. Referee 1 (gating): "TWFE is biased." Referee 2: "result may be crisis-driven." Referee 3 (out-of-scope): "add a structural model." Plan: re-estimate with Callaway–Sant'Anna and add leave-out-period robustness (over-deliver on 1 and 2); for 3, explain in the letter why a full structural model is beyond scope but add a reduced-form mechanism test as a good-faith partial response. The letter opens with a change summary, quotes each comment, and points to the exact revised tables — making the editor's decision easy.
Output format
【Decision】R&R major / R&R minor / reject (appeal grounds?)
【Triage】must-do / should-do / discuss-only (with gating items flagged)
【Substantive work done】identification/robustness re-runs completed? [Y/N]
【Letter】each comment quoted + action-first response + change location? [Y/N]
【Coherence】abstract/intro/highlights + replication package updated? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via Editorial Manager (or eer-submission for a fresh target)
