Ecopol Rebuttal

---
name: ecopol-rebuttal
description: Use when responding to Economic Policy (EP) discussant comments and the panel debate — revising the paper for the camera-ready version that publishes alongside those comments. Plans the post-panel response; it does not invent evidence or citations.
---

# Post-Panel Rebuttal (ecopol-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- You have presented at an EP conference and have two discussants' written comments to address
- You are preparing the camera-ready version that will be published *next to* those comments
- The panel debate surfaced points that need a fix, a concession, or a counter-argument
- A coauthor is treating discussant comments like an anonymous referee report and missing the public, side-by-side nature
- You must decide, point by point, what to change vs. what to defend in the final text

## EP rebuttal is unusual: your reply is published next to the critique

At EP there is no private response-to-referees letter. The **two discussants' comments are published alongside your final paper**, and a summary of the panel discussion may accompany it (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). So your "rebuttal" is mostly **the revised paper itself**: the reader will see the critique and your paper side by side and judge whether you answered it. This reshapes strategy:

1. **You cannot bury a concession in a private letter.** If a discussant is right, fix it in the paper or address it openly — the reader sees both documents.
2. **Defending in the text, not in correspondence.** Where you disagree, the paper must contain the argument/evidence that answers the point, because there is no separate venue to make your case.
3. **Tone is collegial and on the record.** Discussants are named; the exchange is part of the published scholarly conversation, not an adversarial referee fight.

## Triage every discussant point

| Point type | Response |
|------------|----------|
| Correct and fixable | fix in the paper; note the improvement where natural |
| Correct but unfixable (data/scope limit) | concede openly in the text; bound its impact on the conclusion |
| A genuine disagreement | add the argument/evidence to the paper that answers it; acknowledge the alternative view |
| A request beyond scope | address briefly; explain why it is a separate question |
| A policy-framing concern | sharpen the policy bottom line / units (`ecopol-tables-figures`, `ecopol-writing-style`) |

For each of the two discussants, work through every substantive point with this triage; do not cherry-pick the easy ones.

## Craft moves

- **Map academic vs. policy comments separately.** The academic discussant's points usually mean analysis changes (`ecopol-identification`, `ecopol-robustness`); the policy discussant's usually mean framing/magnitude/legibility changes.
- **Strengthen the central magnitude** if either discussant questioned its robustness — that is the most damaging unanswered critique given the side-by-side format.
- **Address the top points in the main text**, not only the appendix — the reader comparing the documents looks at the paper, not the footnotes.
- **Be honest about what you did not change and why** — an unanswered, visible critique is worse than a frank concession.
- **Keep the policy conclusion coherent** after revisions: if a fix moves the number, update the recommendation rather than leaving a stale headline.

## Checklist

- [ ] Every substantive point from **both** discussants triaged (fix / concede / defend / scope)
- [ ] Corrections incorporated into the paper, not just promised
- [ ] Genuine disagreements answered with argument/evidence *in the paper*
- [ ] Central magnitude re-defended if its robustness was questioned
- [ ] Top points addressed in the main text, given the side-by-side publication
- [ ] Concessions stated openly and their impact on the conclusion bounded
- [ ] Policy bottom line still coherent after all revisions
- [ ] Tone collegial and on the record (discussants are named)

## Anti-patterns

- Treating discussant comments like a private referee report you can answer in a hidden letter
- Cherry-picking the easy points and silently ignoring a hard one the reader will see next to your paper
- Defending a number a discussant credibly challenged without strengthening the robustness
- Conceding a point in correspondence but leaving the paper unchanged
- Leaving a stale policy recommendation after a revision moved the underlying estimate

## Output format

```text
【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-rebuttal
【Format reality】discussant comments published alongside the paper
【Discussant 1 (academic)】points → fix/concede/defend
【Discussant 2 (policy)】points → fix/concede/defend
【Central magnitude】re-defended if challenged? Y/N
【Open concessions】stated in text + impact bounded? Y/N
【Policy bottom line】still coherent post-revision? Y/N
【Next step】finalize camera-ready → ecopol-submission (Stage 3)
```