| name | arecon-revision |
| description | Use when responding to Editorial Committee and referee feedback on an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review — coverage gaps, balance/accuracy complaints, framework/structure asks, and accessibility. Drafts the response and revision plan; it does not run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission) or redesign the spine from scratch (arecon-organizing-framework). |
Revision & Response for a Review (arecon-revision)
When to trigger
- A Committee/referee letter on the invited review arrived
- Referees flagged missing literatures, imbalance, mischaracterization, or "reads like a list"
- The editor asked to expand, cut, or rebalance coverage, or to make the framework explicit
- You need a point-by-point response for a review article, not a primary paper
Categories of review feedback (and how to answer each)
ARE revision asks cluster differently from primary-research asks. Triage every point into one bucket:
| Feedback type | Typical phrasing | Response move |
|---|
| Coverage gap | "you omit the X literature / author Y" | almost always concede and integrate — place the missing work in the right framework cell; re-run saturation (arecon-literature-synthesis) |
| Balance / fairness | "this slights school Z / over-cites the author" | steelman the slighted side; re-audit self-citation (arecon-evidence-standards) |
| Appraisal accuracy | "you mischaracterize study W" | correct precisely; reviewed authors often referee — fix exactly |
| Framework / structure | "this is an annotated bibliography" | strengthen or make explicit the spine (arecon-organizing-framework); do not just reorder paragraphs |
| Accessibility | "a non-specialist can't follow Section 4" | add intuition, define jargon (arecon-writing-style) |
| Scope | "too broad / too narrow / overruns length" | negotiate with the editor (arecon-editor-strategy); rescope deliberately, within the page envelope |
AREcon-specific revision ledger
Annual Review of Economics revisions should leave a clear economics review contract, not just a
longer bibliography. Maintain a ledger that tells the editor how each change sharpens what an
economist can learn from the review.
| Revision pressure | Evidence to add or rebalance | Where it should show up |
|---|
| Theory/model spine is unclear | canonical model, mechanism, or comparative-static logic | opening framework figure/table, section road map |
| Empirical frontier is uneven | design map: data, identification, estimand, limitation | evidence table and "what we know" summary |
| Magnitudes are under-interpreted | elasticities, welfare-relevant units, or scale benchmarks | synthesis paragraphs, not just citations |
| Field boundary is disputed | adjacent JEL literatures and handbook/JEP-style anchors | boundary note explaining inclusion/exclusion |
| Policy or welfare stakes are vague | clarified mechanism-to-policy channel and uncertainty | conclusion/agenda, with caveats preserved |
| Adjacent economists cannot follow | intuition before notation, plain-language result labels | section openings and table captions |
Use the ledger to prevent a common AREcon failure mode: adding every requested citation while the
review's economic proposition becomes less visible.
Writing the response letter
- Point-by-point, quote-then-respond. Reproduce each comment, then state the change and where it lives (section/page/table).
- Coverage asks: concede and integrate. A missing literature is a real defect in a review of record; adding it strengthens the article. Resist defensiveness — the omitting author may be the referee who named it.
- Balance asks: show the steelman. Demonstrate the revised text states the other side at its strongest; that is what a fairness complaint actually demands.
- Accuracy asks: fix exactly. Mischaracterizing a reviewed author who is your referee is the fastest route to a hostile second round; correct the wording precisely and, where helpful, quote their own framing.
- Translate additions into economic learning. When you add a literature, say whether it changes a
mechanism, an estimand, a benchmark magnitude, or only the historical coverage.
- Separate evidence classes. Do not let theory, calibration, quasi-experiment, structural estimate,
and descriptive trend evidence collapse into one "evidence says" paragraph.
- Disagree rarely and respectfully. If an ask would break the spine or overrun the page envelope, explain the trade-off and propose an alternative, ideally pre-cleared with the editor.
- Keep the editor central. On scope and conflicting referee asks, ask the Committee editor to adjudicate rather than satisfying mutually-incompatible referees.
- Track every addition's ripple. Adding a literature can shift the review's center of gravity; after each integration, re-check that the framework cells, the summary tables, and the balance audit still hold, and that the draft still fits the volume's length envelope.
- Mind the volume clock. Revisions run against a production deadline (
arecon-review-process); plan the rework so the article stays in its volume.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Defending an omission rather than adding the missing literature (a review gap is a real defect)
- Answering a balance complaint with assertions of fairness instead of revised, steelmanned text
- Dismissing or re-mischaracterizing a reviewed author who is likely your referee
- "Fixing" an annotated-bibliography critique by shuffling paragraphs without imposing a spine
- Treating theory, reduced-form evidence, structural estimates, and descriptive facts as interchangeable support
- Adding policy motivation without preserving the review's uncertainty and welfare-relevant caveats
- Bloating scope to satisfy every "also cover…" until the review overruns its length and slips the volume
- Trying to satisfy two contradictory referees instead of asking the editor to decide
Output format
【Triage】each comment bucketed (coverage/balance/appraisal/framework/accessibility/scope)? Y/N
【Coverage gaps】conceded + integrated into framework cells; saturation re-run? Y/N
【Balance】steelman shown in revised text; self-citation re-audited? Y/N
【Appraisal fixes】mischaracterizations corrected precisely? Y/N
【Framework asks】spine strengthened/made explicit (not reordered)? Y/N
【Economics ledger】theory/design/magnitude/boundary/policy stakes separated? Y/N
【Scope/length】fits page envelope + volume deadline? Y/N
【Letter】point-by-point, quote-then-respond, with locations? Y/N
【Next step】→ arecon-submission (re-deliver the revised review)
