Misq Rebuttal

---
name: misq-rebuttal
description: "Use after a MIS Quarterly revision decision to plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — prioritizing the Senior Editor's letter, addressing tradition-specific rigor concerns (identification, validity/CMB, artifact evaluation, trustworthiness), updating the transparency materials, and keeping the revised manuscript within its page limit. Drafts the response after the manuscript is actually revised; interpret the decision first with misq-review-process."
category: data-science-and-ml
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "MIS-Quarterly-Skills/skills/misq-rebuttal/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/MIS-Quarterly-Skills/skills/misq-rebuttal/SKILL.md
---


# Rebuttal & Response Letter (misq-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- You received a major/minor revision (or a reject-and-resubmit) from MISQ
- You have read the decision with misq-review-process and revised the manuscript
- You need a point-by-point response that the Senior Editor and reviewers can audit

## Revise first, then write the response

Do not draft the response letter before the manuscript is actually revised. The response is a map to real changes, not a promise of them. For each point, the revision in the manuscript comes first; the letter then points to where and how.

## Anchor the revision in the SE letter

The **Senior Editor owns the decision**, so the SE's letter sets priorities. Build a triage table: SE-elevated concerns first, then AE and reviewer points, flagging where reviewers conflict. Resolve conflicts in the direction the SE signaled, and say so explicitly when you do.

## Address rigor in the currency of your tradition

| Concern raised | A persuasive MISQ response... |
|----------------|-------------------------------|
| **Behavioral** validity / common-method bias | Adds procedural evidence, a marker/method-factor test, or shows interactions survive — not just a Harman test |
| **Economics** identification | Adds placebo/event-study evidence, alternative specifications, sensitivity to the key assumption |
| **Design science** evaluation | Adds baselines, ablations, or a field/expert evaluation tying results to design propositions |
| **Qualitative** trustworthiness | Strengthens the data structure, audit trail, and representative evidence |

## Update the transparency materials

Reviewers often probe replicability. Update the genre-appropriate transparency package — design/data/analysis documentation plus **procedures and/or code sufficient for replication** — and note in the letter what you added. Where badges or the AIS Transactions on Replication Research collaboration apply, mention them.

## Mind the page limit in the revision

Adding analyses and clarifications grows the manuscript, but the page limit still **counts everything** and over-length revisions are returned. Offsetting cuts (tighter framing, consolidated exhibits) are part of the revision, not an afterthought — and supplementary materials remain discouraged.

## Write a clean, auditable response

- Quote each comment, then give your response and point to the changed page/section.
- Be specific and gracious; disagree only with evidence and a clear rationale, and only when the SE has not already settled the point.
- Summarize the major changes at the top so the SE can see the arc quickly.
- Keep the manuscript anonymized if the revision is still under double-anonymous review.

## Checklist

- [ ] Manuscript revised before the letter was drafted
- [ ] SE-elevated points addressed first; reviewer conflicts resolved per the SE's signal
- [ ] Tradition-specific rigor concern answered in its proper currency
- [ ] Transparency materials updated and referenced
- [ ] Revised manuscript still within its category page limit; anonymity preserved
- [ ] Every comment quoted, answered, and cross-referenced to a change

## Anti-patterns

- Drafting the response before making the changes.
- Treating all reviewers as equal and ignoring the SE's prioritization.
- Answering an identification or evaluation concern with rhetoric instead of new evidence.
- Letting the revision balloon past the page limit by bolting on appendices.

## Output format

```
【Decision being answered】major / minor / reject-and-resubmit
【SE-first triage】ranked changes made
【Rigor responses】behavioral / economics / design science / qualitative evidence added
【Transparency update】procedures/code refreshed: yes
【Length & anonymity】within limit; anonymized: yes
【Response letter】point-by-point, cross-referenced: ready
```

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `MIS-Quarterly-Skills/skills/misq-rebuttal/SKILL.md`