EctJ Rebuttal
Use this after an EctJ decision letter. Reopen the decision letter, RES review-process page,
and current author instructions before setting deadlines.
Response strategy
- Separate econometric-validity issues from exposition, simulation, application, and
replication issues.
- Answer assumption and proof objections with exact theorem, lemma, or appendix changes.
- If a referee asks for broader treatment, decide whether it belongs in the printed paper,
online supplement, or a clearly scoped limitation.
- Add Monte Carlo or empirical checks only when they resolve a decision-critical concern.
- Preserve compactness; an R&R that bloats beyond the EctJ page discipline can create a new
conformance problem.
- Track the RES resubmission clock; the source map records normal windows of one month and
sometimes three months.
Revision triage
Classify each requested change before writing:
- Validity-critical: assumptions, theorem statements, proof gaps, estimator definition, simulation design.
These must be fixed in the manuscript and cross-referenced in the response.
- Applied-value-critical: application too decorative, weak comparison, missing practical diagnostic. Add
only the smallest table or paragraph that proves use value.
- Compression-risk: requests for extra cases, literature, or robustness that would break the printed-paper
discipline. Move noncritical material to supplement or explain why it is outside scope.
- Replication-risk: code, seeds, data access, or package layout. Fix in the archive and cite the file path.
The response letter should show that the leading case is now stronger, not just longer.
Response evidence rule
For every major comment, attach exactly one evidence object: theorem change, proof fix, simulation result,
application table, compression decision, or replication-file update. If a response has no evidence object,
it is probably only reassurance and should be strengthened before resubmission.
EctJ pushback patterns and venue-specific fixes
| Referee pushback |
What it signals at EctJ |
Fix that closes it |
| "Asymptotic results carry no finite-sample evidence" |
Theory-simulation contract broken |
Add the one coverage or size panel that pairs with the contested theorem, summarized within the main-text page norm |
| "Simulation DGPs are detached from the empirical illustration" |
Applied-value claim looks decorative |
Re-anchor one DGP to parameters estimated from the application data and say so in the design preamble |
| "The leading case is too special to matter" |
Scope guardrail read as a defect |
Show the leading case covers the application class; add a remark stating what an extension would require |
| "Why is this proof only in the online appendix?" |
Proof-placement conformance risk |
Move the derivation into the printed appendix and re-verify the 20-page budget |
| "Code did not reproduce Table 3" |
Replication credibility, decisive after conditional acceptance |
Rerun the package, fix seeds or versions, cite the exact script in the response |
Worked response fragment
Illustrative numbers: a referee writes that the proposed test's size is untrustworthy with few
clusters. A strong EctJ response does four things in four sentences: concede the gap ("the
original design only simulated 30 or more clusters"), report new evidence ("at 8 clusters the test
rejects 5.6% at nominal 5%, versus 12.9% for the incumbent; new Table 2, rows 1-2"), tie it to the
theorem ("consistent with Proposition 2's symmetric leading case"), and protect the page budget
("the full grid moved to Supplement S3"). Evidence, theorem, location — nothing else.
Resubmission clock triage
- Map each validity-critical fix to the clock first: a new proof usually fits the normal
one-month window, while a new simulation arm or application re-estimation often needs the
longer window — ask the editorial office early rather than overrunning silently.
- Re-verify conformance after revising: added material at this venue can push the printed paper
past the page norm and convert a scientific R&R into a format failure.
- If the decision letter touches the replication package, treat the rerun as part of the
response, not as post-acceptance housekeeping.
Output format
[Decision] R&R / conditional acceptance / reject-resubmit / other
[Revision thesis] <one sentence>
[Major issues] <assumptions/proofs/simulations/application/replication>
[Response draft] <point-by-point structure>
[Compression guardrail] <what must not grow>
1---2name: ectj-rebuttal3description: Use when drafting a The Econometrics Journal response letter and revision plan after a referee report, especially for assumptions, proofs, Monte Carlo evidence, empirical application, 20-page compression, resubmission timing, and replication-package conditions.4---56# EctJ Rebuttal78Use this after an EctJ decision letter. Reopen the decision letter, RES review-process page,9and current author instructions before setting deadlines.1011## Response strategy1213- Separate econometric-validity issues from exposition, simulation, application, and14 replication issues.15- Answer assumption and proof objections with exact theorem, lemma, or appendix changes.16- If a referee asks for broader treatment, decide whether it belongs in the printed paper,17 online supplement, or a clearly scoped limitation.18- Add Monte Carlo or empirical checks only when they resolve a decision-critical concern.19- Preserve compactness; an R&R that bloats beyond the EctJ page discipline can create a new20 conformance problem.21- Track the RES resubmission clock; the source map records normal windows of one month and22 sometimes three months.2324## Revision triage2526Classify each requested change before writing:2728- **Validity-critical**: assumptions, theorem statements, proof gaps, estimator definition, simulation design.29 These must be fixed in the manuscript and cross-referenced in the response.30- **Applied-value-critical**: application too decorative, weak comparison, missing practical diagnostic. Add31 only the smallest table or paragraph that proves use value.32- **Compression-risk**: requests for extra cases, literature, or robustness that would break the printed-paper33 discipline. Move noncritical material to supplement or explain why it is outside scope.34- **Replication-risk**: code, seeds, data access, or package layout. Fix in the archive and cite the file path.3536The response letter should show that the leading case is now stronger, not just longer.3738## Response evidence rule3940For every major comment, attach exactly one evidence object: theorem change, proof fix, simulation result,41application table, compression decision, or replication-file update. If a response has no evidence object,42it is probably only reassurance and should be strengthened before resubmission.4344## EctJ pushback patterns and venue-specific fixes4546| Referee pushback | What it signals at EctJ | Fix that closes it |47|---|---|---|48| "Asymptotic results carry no finite-sample evidence" | Theory-simulation contract broken | Add the one coverage or size panel that pairs with the contested theorem, summarized within the main-text page norm |49| "Simulation DGPs are detached from the empirical illustration" | Applied-value claim looks decorative | Re-anchor one DGP to parameters estimated from the application data and say so in the design preamble |50| "The leading case is too special to matter" | Scope guardrail read as a defect | Show the leading case covers the application class; add a remark stating what an extension would require |51| "Why is this proof only in the online appendix?" | Proof-placement conformance risk | Move the derivation into the printed appendix and re-verify the 20-page budget |52| "Code did not reproduce Table 3" | Replication credibility, decisive after conditional acceptance | Rerun the package, fix seeds or versions, cite the exact script in the response |5354## Worked response fragment5556Illustrative numbers: a referee writes that the proposed test's size is untrustworthy with few57clusters. A strong EctJ response does four things in four sentences: concede the gap ("the58original design only simulated 30 or more clusters"), report new evidence ("at 8 clusters the test59rejects 5.6% at nominal 5%, versus 12.9% for the incumbent; new Table 2, rows 1-2"), tie it to the60theorem ("consistent with Proposition 2's symmetric leading case"), and protect the page budget61("the full grid moved to Supplement S3"). Evidence, theorem, location — nothing else.6263## Resubmission clock triage6465- Map each validity-critical fix to the clock first: a new proof usually fits the normal66 one-month window, while a new simulation arm or application re-estimation often needs the67 longer window — ask the editorial office early rather than overrunning silently.68- Re-verify conformance after revising: added material at this venue can push the printed paper69 past the page norm and convert a scientific R&R into a format failure.70- If the decision letter touches the replication package, treat the rerun as part of the71 response, not as post-acceptance housekeeping.7273## Output format7475```text76[Decision] R&R / conditional acceptance / reject-resubmit / other77[Revision thesis] <one sentence>78[Major issues] <assumptions/proofs/simulations/application/replication>79[Response draft] <point-by-point structure>80[Compression guardrail] <what must not grow>81```
brycewang-stanford