Ajps Rebuttal

---
name: ajps-rebuttal
description: Use when writing the response to an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) revise-and-resubmit. The revised manuscript stays double-blind, the response memorandum is submitted anonymized, and any new analyses must keep the replication package re-runnable for the third-party verifier at acceptance. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results.
---

# R&R Rebuttal (ajps-rebuttal)

An AJPS **R&R is a real opportunity** — most accepted papers earn it through revision. The response
must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision converges, and it carries
two AJPS-specific constraints: the **resubmission stays double-blind** (the response memorandum is
uploaded **anonymized**), and any new analysis must keep the deposited code **re-runnable**, because a
third-party verifier will re-run it at acceptance (see `ajps-replication-and-verification`).

## When to trigger

- An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response memorandum
- Reviewers disagree and you must reconcile their demands
- A reviewer requests analyses that would change the paper's claims
- Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

## Strategy

1. **Read the editor's letter as the rubric.** The editor signals which points are decisive — solve
   those first; the editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
2. **One point-by-point memorandum, every comment addressed.** Quote each comment, then respond. Never
   skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. **Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence.** For each: did what was asked (say where, with the
   new text/table number), or push back **respectfully with a reason** (theory, design, evidence). A
   well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the paper.
4. **Reconcile conflicting reviewers openly.** When R2 wants the opposite of R3, say so, choose a
   principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.
5. **Protect the contribution and the identification.** Add robustness and clarifications; resist
   changes that dilute the generalizable claim or weaken the design that earned the R&R.
6. **Keep it anonymous and re-runnable.** The revised manuscript stays **double-blind** (no
   acknowledgments/funding/first-person self-cites added back in), the memorandum is uploaded
   **anonymized**, and every new exhibit must be regenerated by the master script so verification at
   acceptance will pass.

## Response-memorandum format

For each reviewer comment:

```
> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].
```

Open with a short **summary of the main changes** to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with
the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly. Keep the memorandum anonymized.

## Anti-patterns

- Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
- Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic just to please a reviewer
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
- "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
- De-anonymizing the resubmission (adding acknowledgments, funding, or first-person self-cites back)
- Adding analyses that the deposited code can no longer reproduce (verification will fail at acceptance)

## Output format

```
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Reviewer conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of claim/identification? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package】resubmission still blind; new exhibits re-runnable? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — double-blind resubmission and verification-at-acceptance policy