Red Rebuttal

---
name: red-rebuttal
description: Use to plan the response-to-referees after a Review of Economic Dynamics (RED) revise-and-resubmit — structuring a point-by-point reply for a single-anonymized, two-referee process, prioritizing model/quantitative concerns, and remembering that second-and-later resubmissions are exempt from the submission fee. Strategy; it does not write the paper.
---

# Rebuttal Strategy for RED (red-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- An R&R has arrived from RED and you are planning the revision and reply
- Reconciling comments from the (minimum) two referees and the editor
- Deciding how to handle requests that touch the model, calibration, or code archive

## How to respond at RED

- **Point-by-point, per referee.** RED uses **single-anonymized** review with at least **two referees**;
  structure a clear, numbered response to each, plus a short letter to the Coordinating Editor summarizing
  the main changes. Quote each comment, then state the change and where it lives in the revised paper.
- **Lead with the model/quantitative concerns.** Referees at a dynamic-economics journal care most about
  whether the **mechanism**, **assumptions/regularity conditions**, **calibration discipline**, and
  **numerical accuracy** hold up. Address those first; presentation comments after.
- **Re-run and re-archive.** If you change the model, calibration, or estimation, **re-run everything** and
  update the data/code archive (and its readme.txt: seeds, execution order, runtime), since RED's code-first
  culture means reviewers expect the archive to track the revision.
- **Fee note.** A **second-or-later resubmission is exempt from the submission fee** — the review clock,
  not a new fee, governs the next round.
- **Disagree respectfully, with evidence.** Where you decline a change, give a model-based or quantitative
  reason (a robustness result, an accuracy check, a theoretical argument), not just an assertion.

## Checklist

- [ ] Separate, numbered point-by-point replies for each referee, plus an editor cover letter
- [ ] Model/quantitative concerns addressed first; every change cross-referenced to the manuscript
- [ ] Code/data archive re-run and updated to match the revision
- [ ] Declined requests answered with quantitative/theoretical evidence
- [ ] Resubmission handled as fee-exempt

## Anti-patterns

- A single undifferentiated reply that blurs the two referees' distinct concerns
- Revising the model but not re-running or re-archiving the code
- Treating a resubmission as if it requires a new fee
- Brushing off a substantive identification/accuracy concern instead of confronting it

## Supplementary resources

- [`red-review-process`](../red-review-process/SKILL.md) — the review model this reply addresses
- [`red-replication-and-data-policy`](../red-replication-and-data-policy/SKILL.md) — updating the archive on revision