Rof Rebuttal

---
name: rof-rebuttal
description: Use when drafting a Review of Finance response letter and revision plan after an R&R, especially under the two-round philosophy, top-three-finance standards, code/data conditions, and page-cap constraints.
---

# Review of Finance Rebuttal

Use this after an RoF decision letter. Because RoF aims to reach a final decision by the
second round, the first revision is your one real chance — make the round-one response
decisive rather than holding arguments back.

## When to trigger

- An RoF R&R or first-round decision with referee reports has arrived.
- You need to sequence revisions and draft a point-by-point response.
- A second-round report raises a new concern and you must decide how to handle it.

## Response strategy

- Separate the referees' major concerns required for publication from their suggestions,
  mirroring the two-bucket structure RoF asks referees to use; resolve every major concern
  fully before polishing suggestions.
- Answer the finance contribution first, then identification, theory, data, robustness, and
  exposition.
- Show, don't assert: point each response to the exact revised table, figure, section, and
  page; quote short new text.
- Keep the revised manuscript within the hard 60-page total cap (appendices, bibliography,
  figures, tables all count).
- If a new referee concern appears in round two, check whether it was raised in round one and
  whether it is tied to your changes; under RoF's two-round philosophy a genuinely new,
  unrelated concern may fall outside scope — raise this politely, via the editor, and rarely.
- Authors own the paper: you may decline a suggestion that would harm it, with reasons.
- Update replication programs, pseudo-data, logs, and the Data Availability Statement
  alongside manuscript revisions.

## Anti-patterns

- Treating suggestions as binding while under-addressing a major concern.
- Drafting the letter before the revised manuscript exists.
- Saving a key result or argument for round two — it may simply be ignored.
- Defensive, adjective-heavy pushback instead of new evidence.

## Output format

```text
[Decision] R&R / reject-resubmit / conditional acceptance / other
[Revision thesis] <one sentence>
[Required concerns] <issue -> manuscript change>
[Suggestions] <accept, partially address, or explain>
[Code/data updates] <needed or complete>
```