smj-rebuttal

name	smj-rebuttal
description	Use when drafting the response letter and revising a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript after an R&R decision. Structures the point-by-point response; it assumes the revision plan from smj-review-process is set.

R&R Response & Rebuttal (smj-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You received a Major/Minor Revision and have revised (or are revising) the manuscript
• You need to write the response-to-reviewers letter
• You must decide how to respond to a comment you disagree with
• The manuscript changes are in progress but the response document is not yet written

Revise the manuscript first. A response letter written before the actual edits exist will over-promise and drift from the paper.

The response-letter structure

1. Opening to the editor. Thank the action editor and reviewers; state that you have revised substantially; summarize the 2–4 most important changes (lead with how you addressed the gating concern — usually endogeneity or contribution).
2. Point-by-point response. For every comment, in order, per reviewer:
   • Quote or paraphrase the comment (verbatim is safest).
   • State your response and exactly what changed.
   • Point to the location: "see revised Section 4.2, pp. 18–20, and new Table 5."
3. Reviewer-by-reviewer grouping with clear headers (Reviewer 1, 2, …, Editor).
4. Summary of changes (optional) and a clean revised manuscript plus, where helpful, a tracked-changes version.

Responding well

• Address every comment — none silently dropped. Even a comment you reject gets a respectful, evidence-based reply.
• Show, don't assert. "We now address endogeneity with an instrument (new Section 4.3) and report the first-stage F (Table 4)" beats "we believe endogeneity is not a concern."
• Lead each reply with the action taken, then the rationale.
• Disagree respectfully and with evidence. When pushing back, acknowledge the concern, present the counter-evidence or theoretical reason, and offer a compromise (e.g., a robustness check or appendix note) where possible.
• Reconcile conflicting reviewers explicitly; if two reviewers want opposite things, explain your choice and flag it for the editor.
• Match tone to the editor's priorities from the decision letter; the gating concern gets the most thorough treatment.

SMJ-specific emphases in the response

• If the gating concern was endogeneity, your strongest reply is a design improvement (instrument, shock, matching, selection model, or partial-identification bounds) with the identification evidence shown — not more controls or rhetoric. This aligns with SMJ's own standard (Bettis, Gambardella, Helfat & Mitchell, 2014, SMJ 35: 949–953): a good-faith effort to address endogeneity, and no spec-mining for better p-values (SMJ disapproves of data snooping / p-hacking). If causation remains imperfect, reframe the claim honestly — SMJ accepts this.
• If the gating concern was contribution, sharpen the theoretical advance and its strategy stakes (loop back to smj-contribution-framing); do not merely add findings.
• Keep the manuscript's framing consistent with the letter — reviewers re-read the intro and discussion to check that promised changes actually landed.

Checklist

• The manuscript is actually revised before the letter is finalized
• Every comment from every reviewer and the editor has a response
• Each reply states the concrete change and its location (section/page/table)
• The gating concern is addressed first and most thoroughly
• Push-backs are respectful and evidence-based, with a compromise offered where possible
• Conflicting reviewer requests are reconciled and flagged to the editor
• A clean and (if useful) tracked-changes manuscript accompany the letter
• Tone is professional and grateful throughout

Anti-patterns

• Silently ignoring or partially answering a comment
• Asserting a concern is unfounded without new evidence (especially on endogeneity)
• Adding more control variables in place of a real identification fix the reviewer asked for
• Defensive or combative tone toward reviewers or the editor
• Promising changes in the letter that are not actually in the revised manuscript
• Letting the intro/discussion framing contradict the changes claimed in the letter
• Treating a "contribution" critique as solvable by piling on more empirical results

Output format

【Decision being answered】major / minor
【Gating concern + how addressed】endogeneity → [new design] / contribution → [sharpened claim]
【Comments answered】all (n) / outstanding: [...]
【Push-backs】[comment → evidence-based reply + compromise]
【Reviewer conflicts reconciled】yes / flagged to editor
【Manuscript versions】clean + tracked
【Tone】grateful, evidence-led
【Next step】re-preflight via smj-submission, then resubmit → smj-review-process for the next round

Templates & resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — SMJ endogeneity / p-hacking policy (Bettis et al. 2014) and Co-Editor roster
• ../../resources/external_tools.md — packages for added identification / robustness analyses