Rfs Rebuttal

---
name: rfs-rebuttal
description: Use after a decision letter (R&R or reject-and-resubmit) on a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript, to structure the response letter and revision plan. Writes the rebuttal; assumes the manuscript itself is being revised in parallel.
---

# R&R Rebuttal & Response Letter (rfs-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- An RFS decision letter arrives with an editor letter and referee reports
- You have a revise-and-resubmit (or a "reject and resubmit") and must respond
- You need to plan which comments to fully address, partially address, or push back on

> Revise the manuscript first (or in parallel). Do not draft the response letter around changes you have not actually made.

## RFS revision reality

RFS runs a **demanding multi-round review** under a handling Editor (within the editor pool led by Executive Editor Tarun Ramadorai). An R&R is an opportunity, not an acceptance: the editor and referees expect substantive responses, new analysis where warranted, and a manuscript that is visibly better. The response letter is judged as carefully as the paper.

**Two RFS-specific revision situations:**
- **Registered Report Stage 2.** If the paper received Stage 1 in-principle acceptance, the Stage 2 review checks *adherence to the pre-registered protocol*, not whether results are "interesting." Your response letter must map each pre-specified analysis to its result and flag — transparently — any deviation and why. Adding unplanned analyses is fine but must be labeled exploratory, not slipped in as confirmatory.
- **Code-release at revision.** RFS makes public code release a condition of publication. Use the revision rounds to get the replication package clean; referees may re-run it. Do not defer this to post-acceptance.

## Response-letter structure

1. **Cover note to the editor** (half a page): thank the editor and referees; summarize the 3–4 most important changes; note any comment you respectfully disagree with and why. Address the editor's own priorities first — the editor decides.
2. **Per-referee, per-comment**: reproduce each comment verbatim, then respond directly beneath it.
3. **For each comment** use a consistent format:
   - **Comment** (quoted)
   - **Response** (what you did)
   - **Change** (where in the revised paper/IA, with page/section/table numbers)

### How to handle each comment type
- **Substantive & correct** → do the analysis; show the new result; point to the exact location.
- **Substantive but you disagree** → push back *with evidence*, politely; offer an additional test that addresses the underlying concern even if you keep your specification.
- **Based on a misreading** → clarify the text so the next reader cannot misread it too; thank the referee for revealing the ambiguity.
- **Out of scope / would change the paper** → explain the scope; offer to note it as a limitation or future work.
- **Conflicting referees** → surface the conflict to the editor and explain your chosen resolution.

## Tone and discipline
- Respectful, specific, evidence-based. Never dismissive.
- Quote your own added text/results so the referee need not hunt for them.
- Use a colored/italicized revision-text convention so changes are easy to verify.
- Track every comment to closure — an unaddressed comment is the fastest path to rejection.

## Checklist

- [ ] Editor cover note summarizes the major changes and addresses editor priorities first
- [ ] Every referee comment reproduced verbatim and answered individually
- [ ] Each response names the exact location of the change (page/section/table/IA)
- [ ] New analyses actually run and incorporated, not promised
- [ ] Disagreements are evidence-based and offer an alternative test
- [ ] Conflicting referee demands surfaced and resolved transparently
- [ ] Revision-text convention used so changes are easy to locate
- [ ] For a Registered Report: every pre-specified analysis mapped to result; deviations flagged; new analyses labeled exploratory
- [ ] Replication package updated and runnable (RFS code-release condition)
- [ ] No comment left unaddressed

## Anti-patterns

- Promising changes in the letter that are not actually in the manuscript.
- Dismissing a referee or arguing without evidence.
- A vague "we have revised accordingly" with no location.
- Silently ignoring a comment you find inconvenient.
- Picking a fight with the editor's stated priorities.
- Over-adding analyses that bloat the paper instead of using the Internet Appendix.

## Output format

```
【Decision】R&R / reject-and-resubmit / Registered Report Stage 2
【Editor priorities】[the 2–3 things the editor most wants]
【Comment ledger】[referee#-comment# → addressed / partial / pushed-back → location]
【New analyses】[run + incorporated; label exploratory vs. confirmatory if a Registered Report]
【Code package】updated + runnable? yes/no
【Open risks】[comments that may not satisfy]
【Status】response letter ready / manuscript revised? yes/no
```