Jae Rebuttal

---
name: jae-rebuttal
description: Use when planning revisions and drafting the point-by-point response for a Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE) revise-and-resubmit — prioritizing the editor's identification and contribution concerns, satisfying economics-trained reviewers with new tests, and noting that resubmissions carry no submission fee.
---

# R&R Revision & Response for JAE (jae-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- You received a JAE revise-and-resubmit and must plan the revision
- Reviewers demand additional identification, mechanism, or robustness tests
- You need to write the point-by-point response letter
- You are unsure how to reconcile conflicting reviewer requests

## Revise before you write the letter

Do the empirical and theoretical work **first**; the response letter documents revisions already made, not promises. At JAE the binding hierarchy is: the **Editor's letter first** (the contribution framing and the identification that must hold), then each **reviewer** point. Where the editor and a reviewer conflict, follow the editor and explain the resolution courteously.

## Prioritize what JAE referees care about

Because the decision rests on **economic mechanism and identification**, allocate effort accordingly:

- **Identification challenges**: add the natural experiment, instrument, placebo, or pre-trend evidence the referee wants; if a clean design is impossible, bound the bias and argue robustness honestly.
- **Mechanism**: add cross-sectional partitions showing the effect concentrates where the economic friction is severe — often the single most persuasive response.
- **Alternative explanations**: test them empirically rather than dismissing them in prose.
- **Measurement**: re-run with alternative proxies (accruals, conservatism, information-asymmetry measures) to show results are not proxy-driven.

## Writing the point-by-point response

- Reproduce **each comment verbatim**, then give your response and point to the exact revised text, table, or new analysis (with page/table numbers).
- Be **specific and evidence-based**; show the new result rather than asserting robustness.
- Be **respectful and concise** — economics referees value directness; do not argue past a fair point, and concede gracefully when the referee is right.
- Summarize the major changes in a **cover letter to the editor** up front.

## Practical notes

- **Resubmissions carry no submission fee** at JAE (the USD 650 fee applies only to unsolicited new manuscripts) — revise thoroughly rather than rushing.
- Keep the manuscript **double-anonymized**; do not unmask authorship in the response or new acknowledgments.
- Track changes or a marked-up copy if the editor requests it; keep the clean version submission-ready.

## Checklist

- [ ] Revisions completed *before* drafting the response
- [ ] Editor's framing/identification concerns addressed first
- [ ] Every reviewer comment reproduced and answered with specific pointers
- [ ] New identification / mechanism / robustness tests added where demanded
- [ ] Alternative explanations tested empirically
- [ ] Conflicts resolved in the editor's favor, explained politely
- [ ] Anonymization preserved; clean and marked copies prepared

## Anti-patterns

- **Promising changes** instead of making them.
- **Arguing with the referee** rather than addressing the concern.
- **Cosmetic robustness** that does not engage the identification challenge.
- **Ignoring the editor's letter** while answering reviewers.
- **Unmasking authorship** in the response or new acknowledgments.

## Output format

```
【Editor priorities addressed】identification / contribution framing ...
【Per-reviewer responses】comment → revision → pointer (page/table)
【New analyses added】design / mechanism partition / robustness
【Conflicts resolved】editor-favored, explained
【Cover letter summary】major changes
【Status】ready to resubmit (no fee) / pending tests
```