R&R Rebuttal (geb-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- A GEB revision decision has arrived
- Referees question novelty, proof correctness, equilibrium selection, experiment design, or fit
- You need a response letter that respects the Editor-in-Charge process
Triage categories
- Theory correctness: missing proof step, equilibrium existence/uniqueness,
refinement, comparative statics, boundary case, or counterexample.
- Novelty and positioning: the paper may be a corollary, special case, or
incremental extension of known game-theory results.
- Experimental / numerical evidence: underpowered experiment, unclear
treatment, robustness, code, or simulation design.
- Exposition: notation, game form, timing, payoff matrix, assumptions, or
abstract length.
- Fit: contribution to game theory is not visible enough.
Response strategy
- Start with the editor's synthesis, then handle referee comments in order.
- For proof comments, add the missing lemma/proof or narrow the theorem.
- For novelty comments, compare theorem-by-theorem with the closest prior result.
- For experimental comments, add power, robustness, treatment checks, or clearer
implementation details.
- Keep the contribution framed as advancing game theory or its applications, not
merely adding a new empirical setting.
Response paragraph pattern
We thank the referee for identifying this issue. We now revise [theorem/model/
experiment] by [change]. The new material appears in [section/table/appendix].
It addresses the concern because [logic tied to equilibrium/proof/design].
Who reads the GEB response
- The Editor in Charge — one of the seven Editors, publicly known to you,
with final decision authority — decides whether the revision returns to
referees or is settled directly. Open the letter with a half-page summary
written for that person: which objections were resolved, and how the main
theorem or finding changed (or did not).
- The Advisory Editor who recommended the decision remains anonymous, as do
referees; never guess identities or address evaluators by name.
- Under GEB's single-anonymized model, a referee may be an author of the
nearest prior result. Meet novelty objections with theorem-level precision,
not dismissal — that reader likely knows the prior proof better than you do.
- If a revision weakens or renames a theorem, flag it prominently; an Editor
in Charge who finds a silently narrowed result late in the letter stops
trusting the rest of it.
Worked micro-example: a novelty objection
Referee: "Proposition 2 appears to be a special case of [prior theorem]."
- Weak reply: "Our setting differs, so the results are not comparable." —
asserts without demonstrating, and reads as evasion to a specialist.
- Strong reply: "Proposition 2 is not implied by [prior theorem]: their
argument uses quasi-concavity of payoffs (their Assumption A2), which our
class violates (new Example 3). Remark 4 now states exactly which step of
their proof fails in our environment, and Corollary 1 cites their result
where the two genuinely overlap." — concedes the true overlap, isolates the
delta, and gives manuscript locations for both.
Revision-package mechanics (Editorial Manager)
Response pass for Games and Economic Behavior
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.
- Do the pass: Separate editor-order changes from referee-specific changes; answer each major objection with manuscript edits plus a short evidence citation, not tone.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
- Sibling guard: compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
[Decision] major revision / minor revision
[Editor priority] ...
[Theory changes] ...
[Experiment/numerics changes] ...
[Positioning changes] ...
[Next step] revise manuscript + response letter
1---2name: geb-rebuttal3description: Use after a Games and Economic Behavior revise-and-resubmit to organize responses on theory novelty, equilibrium/proof details, experiments, simulations, Editor-in-Charge priorities, and Elsevier revision files.4---56# R&R Rebuttal (geb-rebuttal)78## When to trigger910- A GEB revision decision has arrived11- Referees question novelty, proof correctness, equilibrium selection, experiment design, or fit12- You need a response letter that respects the Editor-in-Charge process1314## Triage categories15161. **Theory correctness**: missing proof step, equilibrium existence/uniqueness,17 refinement, comparative statics, boundary case, or counterexample.182. **Novelty and positioning**: the paper may be a corollary, special case, or19 incremental extension of known game-theory results.203. **Experimental / numerical evidence**: underpowered experiment, unclear21 treatment, robustness, code, or simulation design.224. **Exposition**: notation, game form, timing, payoff matrix, assumptions, or23 abstract length.245. **Fit**: contribution to game theory is not visible enough.2526## Response strategy2728- Start with the editor's synthesis, then handle referee comments in order.29- For proof comments, add the missing lemma/proof or narrow the theorem.30- For novelty comments, compare theorem-by-theorem with the closest prior result.31- For experimental comments, add power, robustness, treatment checks, or clearer32 implementation details.33- Keep the contribution framed as advancing game theory or its applications, not34 merely adding a new empirical setting.3536## Response paragraph pattern3738```text39We thank the referee for identifying this issue. We now revise [theorem/model/40experiment] by [change]. The new material appears in [section/table/appendix].41It addresses the concern because [logic tied to equilibrium/proof/design].42```4344## Who reads the GEB response4546- The **Editor in Charge** — one of the seven Editors, publicly known to you,47 with final decision authority — decides whether the revision returns to48 referees or is settled directly. Open the letter with a half-page summary49 written for that person: which objections were resolved, and how the main50 theorem or finding changed (or did not).51- The **Advisory Editor** who recommended the decision remains anonymous, as do52 referees; never guess identities or address evaluators by name.53- Under GEB's single-anonymized model, a referee may be an author of the54 nearest prior result. Meet novelty objections with theorem-level precision,55 not dismissal — that reader likely knows the prior proof better than you do.56- If a revision weakens or renames a theorem, flag it prominently; an Editor57 in Charge who finds a silently narrowed result late in the letter stops58 trusting the rest of it.5960## Worked micro-example: a novelty objection6162Referee: "Proposition 2 appears to be a special case of [prior theorem]."6364- *Weak reply:* "Our setting differs, so the results are not comparable." —65 asserts without demonstrating, and reads as evasion to a specialist.66- *Strong reply:* "Proposition 2 is not implied by [prior theorem]: their67 argument uses quasi-concavity of payoffs (their Assumption A2), which our68 class violates (new Example 3). Remark 4 now states exactly which step of69 their proof fails in our environment, and Corollary 1 cites their result70 where the two genuinely overlap." — concedes the true overlap, isolates the71 delta, and gives manuscript locations for both.7273## Revision-package mechanics (Editorial Manager)7475- [ ] Point-by-point response letter + a marked-changes manuscript alongside76 clean **editable Word or LaTeX source** (required at every round)77- [ ] Keep theorem/section numbering stable where possible; if numbering moved,78 give an old-to-new map at the top of the letter79- [ ] New simulations or sessions added in revision: update seeds, scripts, and80 the voluntary data statement (see geb-replication-and-data-policy)81- [ ] Abstract still within the **250-word cap** after any reframing82- [ ] Generative-AI declaration still accurate if AI tools touched the revision838485## Response pass for Games and Economic Behavior8687Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.8889- **Do the pass:** Separate editor-order changes from referee-specific changes; answer each major objection with manuscript edits plus a short evidence citation, not tone.90- **Return a ledger:** give `claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location` rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.91- **Sibling guard:** compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.92- **Stop condition:** do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's `resources/official-source-map.md` has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.9394## Output format9596```text97[Decision] major revision / minor revision98[Editor priority] ...99[Theory changes] ...100[Experiment/numerics changes] ...101[Positioning changes] ...102[Next step] revise manuscript + response letter103```
brycewang-stanford