Apsr Rebuttal

---
name: apsr-rebuttal
description: Use when writing the response to an American Political Science Review (APSR) revise-and-resubmit. APSR reserves R&R for papers close to publishable, and decisions weigh strong support from all or nearly all reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
---

# R&R Rebuttal (apsr-rebuttal)

An APSR **R&R is a strong signal** — it is "reserved for papers very close to publishable quality."
But publication generally needs **strong support from all or nearly all reviewers**, and the call is
the **editor's discretion**. So the response letter must move *every* reviewer toward yes while
keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent.

## When to trigger

- An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Reviewers disagree with each other 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 and foremost; the editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
2. **One point-by-point response, 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, or evidence).
   Editors respect a well-argued disagreement more than a hollow 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. Don't silently satisfy one and ignore the
   other.
5. **Protect the contribution.** Add robustness and clarifications; resist changes that dilute the
   general-significance claim that earned the R&R. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
6. **Keep anonymity intact** in the revised manuscript (still double-anonymous), and **update the
   reproducibility package** so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see
   `apsr-transparency-and-data-policy`).

## Response-letter 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 the per-comment
entries with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.

## 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
- Adding analyses that quietly contradict the original claim without acknowledging it
- Letting the revised manuscript or new exhibits drift out of sync with the deposited package

## 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 general significance? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + package updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Editorial Manager
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — R&R/decision categories and editor-discretion policy