Jeea Rebuttal

Rebuttal & Response Letter (jeea-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• A JEEA decision letter arrived (R&R, major/minor revision, or reject-and-resubmit)
• You need to triage referee + co-editor comments into a revision plan
• You are drafting the point-by-point response and are unsure how to prioritize
• Referees disagree with each other, or with the co-editor

The JEEA revision reality (source map refreshed 2026-06-20)

JEEA review is single-blind and co-editor-led: the co-editor's letter is the controlling document — it tells you which referee points are binding and which are optional. Resubmission also requires the submitting author to be a current EEA member. Empirical revisions must keep the replication package current because the Data Editor verifies it before formal acceptance. The editorial team works to a fast timeline, so a focused, complete revision is rewarded over a sprawling one. Address the general-interest contribution the co-editor cares about first; subfield minutiae second.

Response-letter strategy

• Read the co-editor's letter as the priority map. Do exactly what it flags as essential; treat referee points it downgrades as lower priority (but still answer them).
• Point-by-point, quote-then-respond. Reproduce each comment, then state precisely what you changed and where (section, table, page), or why you respectfully did not.
• Concede gracefully, push back with evidence. Where a referee is right, fix it and say so. Where you disagree, disagree with an analysis or a citation, never with attitude (single-blind: they know who you are).
• Resolve referee conflicts via the co-editor. When referees contradict each other, follow the co-editor's steer and say you did.
• Show, don't assert. New robustness or a generalized proposition belongs in the paper and is pointed to from the letter, not merely promised.
• Keep the replication package in sync with every new exhibit (jeea-replication-package).

Revision plan structure

1. Co-editor's essential requests — addressed first, completely.
2. Major referee points — identification, model generality, robustness, contribution.
3. Minor points — exposition, citations, exhibits.
4. Conflicts — how you resolved contradictory requests (citing the co-editor).
5. Replication — what changed in the package.

Checklist

• Co-editor letter parsed; essential vs. optional points separated
• Every referee comment answered point-by-point (quote → response → location)
• Changes are in the paper and pointed to, not just promised
• Disagreements backed by analysis/citation, professional in tone
• Referee conflicts resolved via the co-editor's guidance
• Replication package updated for new exhibits; EEA membership current for resubmission
• Revision is focused (matches the fast-timeline norm), not sprawling

Response-letter anatomy (per comment)

For each referee point, use the same three-move structure so the editor can verify your revision quickly:

1. Quote the comment verbatim (or faithfully paraphrased), numbered to match the referee.
2. Respond with exactly what changed and where — "We now estimate with Callaway–Sant'Anna (Table 3, Section 4.2, p. 14)" — or a respectful, evidence-backed reason for not changing.
3. Point to the specific new exhibit/passage so the editor need not hunt.

Open the letter with a short summary of the major changes, framed against the co-editor's essential requests, before the point-by-point.

Worked vignette (illustrative)

Referee 1 wants a structural model; Referee 2 calls the existing model "overbuilt." The co-editor's letter says the empirical contribution is the draw and the model should stay light. The rebuttal follows the co-editor: it trims the model (citing Referee 2), explains to Referee 1 that a fuller structural treatment is a separate paper the editor agreed was out of scope, and points to the leaner model section. The contradiction is resolved by deferring to the controlling document, stated explicitly and politely.

Anti-patterns

• Treating all comments as equal weight instead of following the co-editor's priority map
• Promising changes in the letter that are not actually in the revised paper
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward a referee (single-blind — they know you)
• Ignoring a contradiction between referees instead of resolving it via the co-editor
• Letting the replication package fall out of sync with new results
• Forgetting EEA membership is required again to resubmit
• A response letter that argues without pointing to the changed text

Output format

【Co-editor essentials】[the binding requests]
【Major points】[referee → change → location]
【Minor points】[handled]
【Conflicts】[how resolved via co-editor]
【Replication】[package updated for new exhibits? Y/N]
【Membership】[submitting author EEA member for resubmission? Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via the EEA portal