| name | misq-rebuttal |
| description | Use after a MIS Quarterly revision decision to plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — prioritizing the Senior Editor's letter, addressing tradition-specific rigor concerns (identification, validity/CMB, artifact evaluation, trustworthiness), updating the transparency materials, and keeping the revised manuscript within its page limit. Drafts the response after the manuscript is actually revised; interpret the decision first with misq-review-process. |
Rebuttal & Response Letter (misq-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received a major/minor revision (or a reject-and-resubmit) from MISQ
- You have read the decision with misq-review-process and revised the manuscript
- You need a point-by-point response that the Senior Editor and reviewers can audit
Revise first, then write the response
Do not draft the response letter before the manuscript is actually revised. The response is a map to real changes, not a promise of them. For each point, the revision in the manuscript comes first; the letter then points to where and how.
Anchor the revision in the SE letter
The Senior Editor owns the decision, so the SE's letter sets priorities. Build a triage table: SE-elevated concerns first, then AE and reviewer points, flagging where reviewers conflict. Resolve conflicts in the direction the SE signaled, and say so explicitly when you do.
Address rigor in the currency of your tradition
| Concern raised | A persuasive MISQ response... |
|---|
| Behavioral validity / common-method bias | Adds procedural evidence, a marker/method-factor test, or shows interactions survive — not just a Harman test |
| Economics identification | Adds placebo/event-study evidence, alternative specifications, sensitivity to the key assumption |
| Design science evaluation | Adds baselines, ablations, or a field/expert evaluation tying results to design propositions |
| Qualitative trustworthiness | Strengthens the data structure, audit trail, and representative evidence |
Update the transparency materials
Reviewers often probe replicability. Update the genre-appropriate transparency package — design/data/analysis documentation plus procedures and/or code sufficient for replication — and note in the letter what you added. Where badges or the AIS Transactions on Replication Research collaboration apply, mention them.
Mind the page limit in the revision
Adding analyses and clarifications grows the manuscript, but the page limit still counts everything and over-length revisions are returned. Offsetting cuts (tighter framing, consolidated exhibits) are part of the revision, not an afterthought — and supplementary materials remain discouraged.
Write a clean, auditable response
- Quote each comment, then give your response and point to the changed page/section.
- Be specific and gracious; disagree only with evidence and a clear rationale, and only when the SE has not already settled the point.
- Summarize the major changes at the top so the SE can see the arc quickly.
- Keep the manuscript anonymized if the revision is still under double-anonymous review.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Drafting the response before making the changes.
- Treating all reviewers as equal and ignoring the SE's prioritization.
- Answering an identification or evaluation concern with rhetoric instead of new evidence.
- Letting the revision balloon past the page limit by bolting on appendices.
Output format
【Decision being answered】major / minor / reject-and-resubmit
【SE-first triage】ranked changes made
【Rigor responses】behavioral / economics / design science / qualitative evidence added
【Transparency update】procedures/code refreshed: yes
【Length & anonymity】within limit; anonymized: yes
【Response letter】point-by-point, cross-referenced: ready
