brycewang-stanford Revision & Response (jaar-revision-and-response)
A JAAR R&R is a genuine opening at a journal that rejects ~90%. But the readers may come from very different corners of the study of religion (a textual scholar, a theorist, an ethnographer), and they will ask for different things. The response letter must answer each report on its own terms while keeping the argument and its broad significance intact — and the revision stays double-blind.
When to trigger
- An R&R / revise decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Readers' reports pull in different methodological directions
- A reader asks for engagement with a literature or source base that would reshape the article
- Writing the cover note to the editor
Strategy
- Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor distills which points are decisive; address those first. The editor — not any single reader — adjudicates.
- Point-by-point, every comment. Quote or paraphrase each reader comment, then respond; do not skip any, even ones you decline.
- Concede or reply with reasons. Where a reader is right, revise and say where (section/page); where you disagree, make the scholarly case (evidence, method, or framing) — a well-argued reply beats a capitulation that weakens the argument.
- Reconcile cross-method readers. When a textual reader and a theorist want different emphases, choose a principled path that keeps the essay coherent in its own method, and explain the tradeoff to the editor rather than trying to be every kind of article at once.
- Protect broad significance. Many R&Rs push toward more specialist detail; add it where it strengthens the argument, but do not let the article slide back into a subfield-only piece (the very thing JAAR screens against). Keep the field-level stakes front and center.
- Keep it submittable. Maintain anonymity in the revised main document (third-person self-cites); keep in-text author-date citations; respect the word budget as notes grow.
Response-letter format
For each reader comment:
> [Quoted / paraphrased reader comment]
Response: [What we revised / why we respectfully disagree, with the scholarly reason].
Change: [Section/page where the revision appears].
Open with a brief note to the editor summarizing the main changes and how the revision preserves the article's broad significance; group by reader; end each entry with the change location.
Anti-patterns
- Ignoring or quietly merging away a comment
- Capitulating to a request that erodes the argument or its field-level significance
- Over-specializing the revision until it no longer reads for the whole field
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward readers
- Letting anonymity or in-text citation style lapse in the revised file
Output format
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reader comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs reply】each tagged with scholarly reason + change location
【Cross-method conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Broad significance protected】not narrowed to a subfield? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + in-text citations intact】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Manuscript Central
Worked vignette: reconciling a textual reader and a theorist
The comparative-offerings essay (from jaar-argument-development) earns an R&R. Reader A, a textual
historian, wants far more on the shrine's hagiographic sources; Reader B, a theorist, wants the
"transactional contract" claim grounded in gift theory and pressed harder. Satisfying both literally
would double the length and blur the argument.
- Editor's letter as rubric. The editor singles out two decisive points — tighten the tertium comparationis and keep the field-level payoff visible — and those lead the response.
- Reconcile, don't merge. The author adds a compact source paragraph for Reader A but declines to
turn the essay into a hagiography study, telling the editor that the comparison, not either site's
textual depth, is the contribution; for Reader B she adopts gift theory yet resists "press harder"
into a universal law, defending the bounded scope on reflexivity grounds (
jaar-theory-and-method). - Protect broad significance. Net additions stay inside the word budget; the field-level stakes remain in the intro and conclusion rather than dissolving into shrine particulars.
Hedged calibration: JAAR does not publish a fixed R&R word limit or a required response-letter template; the point-by-point convention and the "editor adjudicates" model here reflect common practice — confirm specific resubmission instructions against the editor's decision letter and the journal's current submission guidelines, and keep the revised main document anonymized (third-person self-cites, in-text author-date) on resubmission.
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— review model and decision categories