Jcf Rebuttal

---
name: jcf-rebuttal
description: Use when preparing a revise-and-resubmit response for the Journal of Corporate Finance (JCF) — a point-by-point reply to two-or-more single-anonymized reviewers and the handling editor, reconciling divergent demands without over-claiming. It structures the response letter and revision plan; it does not run new analysis on its own.
---

# R&R Rebuttal (jcf-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- You received an R&R from JCF and must write the response letter
- Two or more reviewers asked for **different or conflicting** things
- You need to map each comment to a concrete revision

## How JCF R&R works

JCF review is **single anonymized** with a **minimum of two reviewers**, so you typically face **two independent sets of demands** plus the editor's priorities. Reviewers see your identity; the editor decides whether the revision clears the bar. Address every point, but prioritize the editor's framing.

## Response-letter structure

1. **Cover note to the editor**: thank them, summarize the **main changes**, and state how the revision resolves the core concern. Flag any request you respectfully decline and why.
2. **Per-reviewer sections**: restate each comment **verbatim**, then your response, then the **exact change** (section/table/page).
3. **Reconcile conflicts**: when reviewers disagree, state the trade-off, choose a defensible path, and show both robustness results where feasible.

## Revision discipline

- [ ] Every comment has a numbered, traceable response
- [ ] New analyses are added as **robustness**, not a redesign that contradicts the paper
- [ ] Identification concerns answered with diagnostics/placebos, not rhetoric (see jcf-identification-strategy)
- [ ] No new **over-claiming**; scope still matches the design
- [ ] Updated Option C data-availability statement / archive if the empirics changed
- [ ] Abstract still ≤ 250 words; references still consistent (see jcf-writing-style)

## Anti-patterns

- A response that argues without changing the paper.
- Silently ignoring a point the editor cares about.
- Caving to one reviewer in a way that breaks the other's concern.
- Letting the revision quietly over-claim beyond the design.

## Output

```
【Editor note】main changes + core concern resolved? [Y/N]
【Per-reviewer】each comment → response → exact change? [Y/N]
【Conflicts】reconciled with trade-off stated? [Y/N]
【Integrity】no new over-claim; ID diagnostics added? [Y/N]
```