Psci Rebuttal

---
name: psci-rebuttal
description: Use when writing the response to a Psychological Science revise-and-resubmit. Reviews here often demand added robustness, fuller disclosure, or stronger transparency, so the response must address every point and strengthen credibility without breaking the tight format. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
---

# R&R Rebuttal (psci-rebuttal)

A Psychological Science **R&R** typically asks for **more robustness, fuller disclosure, or stronger
transparency** — and all of it has to fit back inside a **very tight word format**. The response
letter must convert every reviewer and reassure the editor on credibility, while keeping the paper
within budget.

## When to trigger

- An R&R arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Reviewers requested added analyses, robustness, disclosure, or open-science changes
- A requested analysis would change the claim
- Writing the cover note to the editor

## Strategy

1. **Read the editor's letter as the rubric.** Solve the decisive points first; the editor adjudicates
   among reviewers.
2. **Point-by-point, every comment.** Quote each comment, then respond; never skip one.
3. **Strengthen credibility, don't just defend.** Many requests (more power, robustness checks, fuller
   disclosure, better data/materials sharing, clearer confirmatory/exploratory split) make the paper
   stronger — do them and say where. The Research Transparency Statement may need updating.
4. **Manage the word budget.** New robustness usually belongs in **supplemental online material** so the
   2,000-word core stays intact; summarize it briefly in the main text and point to the supplement.
5. **Concede or rebut with evidence.** Did what was asked (cite the location), or push back
   respectfully with a reason — don't add an analysis that quietly undercuts the claim without saying so.
6. **Keep anonymization** in the revised (masked) manuscript and repository links, and ensure new
   analyses are reflected in the shared scripts/data (see `psci-open-science-and-transparency`).

## Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

```
> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Main text section, supplement section, or table/figure number].
```

Open with a short **summary of the main changes** to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry
with the location (note when content went to the supplement to protect the word budget).

## Anti-patterns

- Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
- Cramming new robustness into the 2,000-word core and busting the format
- Capitulating to a change that breaks the paper's logic
- Adding analyses that contradict the original claim without acknowledgment
- Letting shared data/scripts/Transparency Statement drift out of sync with the revision
- Reintroducing identifying information into the masked revision

## Output format

```
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Credibility strengthened】power/robustness/disclosure/transparency improved? [Y/N]
【Word budget】new material in supplement; core ≤ 2,000? [Y/N]
【Open-science updated】scripts/data/Transparency Statement in sync? [Y/N]
【Anonymization intact】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Manuscript Central
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — review model, transparency weighting, format