| name | jfe-rebuttal |
| description | Use when drafting the response to a Journal of Financial Economics (JFE) revise-and-resubmit — the response letter, point-by-point replies, and the revision-tracking that JFE's demanding rounds require. Drafts the response after revisions are made; it does not invent new results you have not run. |
R&R Rebuttal (jfe-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received a JFE revise-and-resubmit (or a major-revision invitation)
- You have referee reports and need a structured, point-by-point response
- You have done the revisions and need to document them clearly
- You are facing a demanding second or third round
The JFE revision culture
JFE typically runs multiple demanding rounds. Referees expect that every comment is taken seriously and that requested analyses are actually run, not deflected. The response letter is judged almost as closely as the paper: it must be complete, respectful, and evidence-backed. Do the work first, then write the letter — never draft replies to comments you have not actually addressed.
Two JFE specifics shape the revision: (1) a revise-and-resubmit carries no submission fee (only initial submissions pay the US$850), so resubmitting promptly costs nothing but your time; (2) the handling editor is a subfield expert under Editor-in-Chief Toni M. Whited's small co-editor team, so the editor's letter — not any single referee — is the controlling document. Substantial new robustness goes into the appended Internet Appendix and the updated Mendeley Data code/data package.
Structure of the response
1. A short cover note to the editor
- Thank the editor and referees; summarize the main changes in a short paragraph.
- State that the paper is substantially improved and how.
2. Point-by-point replies (one document per referee)
For each comment:
- Quote the comment verbatim (so the referee finds it instantly).
- State what you did — the analysis run, the text changed, with table/page references.
- Show the result — paste the key new numbers or point to the new exhibit (often a new Internet Appendix table).
- If you disagree, push back respectfully with evidence, and offer a compromise (e.g., add the test to the IA even if you keep the baseline).
3. A change log / revision map
- A table mapping each comment to the manuscript change and its location.
- Makes it trivial for the referee to verify you addressed everything.
Tactics
- Address the editor's emphasized points first and most thoroughly.
- Concede gracefully where the referee is right; defend with evidence where they are not.
- Keep tone professional and unfailingly polite, even under a tough report.
- When two referees conflict, surface it for the editor and explain your choice.
- Put substantial new robustness in the Internet Appendix and point to it in both letter and paper.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "We thank the referee" with no substantive change
- Promising an analysis in the letter that is not in the revised paper
- Skipping or merging a comment you would rather not answer
- Arguing without evidence, or arguing a point you should simply concede
- Burying the most important changes at the end of the letter
- A defensive or dismissive tone that antagonizes the referee
Output format
【Decision】R&R / major / minor
【Comments total】N | 【Addressed】N | 【Disagreed (with evidence)】N
【New analyses run】[...] (location: main / IA)
【Change map included】yes/no
【Editor's points handled first】yes/no
【Next】resubmit via editorialmanager.com/finec (no fee for R&R); if accepted, prepare final files + Mendeley Data deposit
