Rebuttal Strategy for RED (red-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- An R&R has arrived from RED and you are planning the revision and reply
- Reconciling comments from the (minimum) two referees and the editor
- Deciding how to handle requests that touch the model, calibration, or code archive
How to respond at RED
- Point-by-point, per referee. RED uses single-anonymized review with at least two referees;
structure a clear, numbered response to each, plus a short letter to the Coordinating Editor summarizing
the main changes. Quote each comment, then state the change and where it lives in the revised paper.
- Lead with the model/quantitative concerns. Referees at a dynamic-economics journal care most about
whether the mechanism, assumptions/regularity conditions, calibration discipline, and
numerical accuracy hold up. Address those first; presentation comments after.
- Re-run and re-archive. If you change the model, calibration, or estimation, re-run everything and
update the data/code archive (and its readme.txt: seeds, execution order, runtime), since RED's code-first
culture means reviewers expect the archive to track the revision.
- Fee note. A second-or-later resubmission is exempt from the submission fee — the review clock,
not a new fee, governs the next round.
- Disagree respectfully, with evidence. Where you decline a change, give a model-based or quantitative
reason (a robustness result, an accuracy check, a theoretical argument), not just an assertion.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A single undifferentiated reply that blurs the two referees' distinct concerns
- Revising the model but not re-running or re-archiving the code
- Treating a resubmission as if it requires a new fee
- Brushing off a substantive identification/accuracy concern instead of confronting it
Rerun rule
Any revision that changes a parameter, calibration target, solution method, sample, or shock definition
requires rerunning the affected exhibits and updating the archive README. If the response letter says
"results are unchanged," cite the rerun script and output date.
Response-letter skeleton for a RED R&R
Dear [Coordinating Editor],
Summary of changes (one page max):
1. [Model/mechanism change] — new Section X, new Figure Y
2. [Calibration/estimation change] — Table Z re-estimated; archive updated
3. [New robustness] — Appendix C: accuracy checks / alternative targets
Referee 1
Comment 1.1 (quoted). Response: [change + manuscript location].
Rerun: run_all.sh, [date], seeds unchanged.
Comment 1.2 (quoted). Response: we respectfully maintain [claim] because
[quantitative evidence: robustness table / accuracy check / proposition].
Referee 2
...
Archive note: data/code archive v[X.Y] resubmitted; readme.txt updated
(execution order, expected runtime, random seeds).
Date-stamping each rerun and versioning the archive is cheap and signals the code-first discipline RED's
data/code policy institutionalizes.
Frequent RED referee demands and how to absorb them
| Demand |
Cost |
Strategy |
| "Redo the counterfactual under an alternative calibration" |
compute hours–days |
run it; report in an appendix; flag heavy runtime in the letter |
| "Show the mechanism in a simplified version" |
modeling time |
add a two-period or representative-agent special case isolating the force |
| "Your solution may be inaccurate near the constraint" |
re-solving |
refine the grid near the kink; report Euler errors before and after |
| "Estimate parameter X rather than calibrating it" |
substantial |
negotiate: SMM on a focused moment set, or a sensitivity band with a reason estimation is infeasible |
| "Compare against [referee's preferred model]" |
varies |
implement a stripped-down version if central; otherwise differentiate analytically and bound the horse race out of scope |
Triage order for the revision
Address concerns in this order: (1) anything questioning whether the mechanism exists, (2) calibration
and estimation discipline, (3) numerical accuracy, (4) extra experiments, (5) exposition. A reply that
fixes typos first and the accuracy concern last reads as evasive to quantitative-macro referees.
Supplementary resources
1---2name: red-rebuttal3description: Use when planning the response-to-referees after a Review of Economic Dynamics (RED) revise-and-resubmit — structuring a point-by-point reply for a single-anonymized, two-referee process, prioritizing model/quantitative concerns, and remembering that second-and-later resubmissions are exempt from the submission fee. Strategy; it does not write the paper.4---56# Rebuttal Strategy for RED (red-rebuttal)78## When to trigger910- An R&R has arrived from RED and you are planning the revision and reply11- Reconciling comments from the (minimum) two referees and the editor12- Deciding how to handle requests that touch the model, calibration, or code archive1314## How to respond at RED1516- **Point-by-point, per referee.** RED uses **single-anonymized** review with at least **two referees**;17 structure a clear, numbered response to each, plus a short letter to the Coordinating Editor summarizing18 the main changes. Quote each comment, then state the change and where it lives in the revised paper.19- **Lead with the model/quantitative concerns.** Referees at a dynamic-economics journal care most about20 whether the **mechanism**, **assumptions/regularity conditions**, **calibration discipline**, and21 **numerical accuracy** hold up. Address those first; presentation comments after.22- **Re-run and re-archive.** If you change the model, calibration, or estimation, **re-run everything** and23 update the data/code archive (and its readme.txt: seeds, execution order, runtime), since RED's code-first24 culture means reviewers expect the archive to track the revision.25- **Fee note.** A **second-or-later resubmission is exempt from the submission fee** — the review clock,26 not a new fee, governs the next round.27- **Disagree respectfully, with evidence.** Where you decline a change, give a model-based or quantitative28 reason (a robustness result, an accuracy check, a theoretical argument), not just an assertion.2930## Checklist3132- [ ] Separate, numbered point-by-point replies for each referee, plus an editor cover letter33- [ ] Model/quantitative concerns addressed first; every change cross-referenced to the manuscript34- [ ] Code/data archive re-run and updated to match the revision35- [ ] Declined requests answered with quantitative/theoretical evidence36- [ ] Resubmission handled as fee-exempt3738## Anti-patterns3940- A single undifferentiated reply that blurs the two referees' distinct concerns41- Revising the model but not re-running or re-archiving the code42- Treating a resubmission as if it requires a new fee43- Brushing off a substantive identification/accuracy concern instead of confronting it4445## Rerun rule4647Any revision that changes a parameter, calibration target, solution method, sample, or shock definition48requires rerunning the affected exhibits and updating the archive README. If the response letter says49"results are unchanged," cite the rerun script and output date.5051## Response-letter skeleton for a RED R&R5253```text54Dear [Coordinating Editor],5556Summary of changes (one page max):57 1. [Model/mechanism change] — new Section X, new Figure Y58 2. [Calibration/estimation change] — Table Z re-estimated; archive updated59 3. [New robustness] — Appendix C: accuracy checks / alternative targets6061Referee 162 Comment 1.1 (quoted). Response: [change + manuscript location].63 Rerun: run_all.sh, [date], seeds unchanged.64 Comment 1.2 (quoted). Response: we respectfully maintain [claim] because65 [quantitative evidence: robustness table / accuracy check / proposition].6667Referee 268 ...6970Archive note: data/code archive v[X.Y] resubmitted; readme.txt updated71(execution order, expected runtime, random seeds).72```7374Date-stamping each rerun and versioning the archive is cheap and signals the code-first discipline RED's75data/code policy institutionalizes.7677## Frequent RED referee demands and how to absorb them7879| Demand | Cost | Strategy |80|---|---|---|81| "Redo the counterfactual under an alternative calibration" | compute hours–days | run it; report in an appendix; flag heavy runtime in the letter |82| "Show the mechanism in a simplified version" | modeling time | add a two-period or representative-agent special case isolating the force |83| "Your solution may be inaccurate near the constraint" | re-solving | refine the grid near the kink; report Euler errors before and after |84| "Estimate parameter X rather than calibrating it" | substantial | negotiate: SMM on a focused moment set, or a sensitivity band with a reason estimation is infeasible |85| "Compare against [referee's preferred model]" | varies | implement a stripped-down version if central; otherwise differentiate analytically and bound the horse race out of scope |8687## Triage order for the revision8889Address concerns in this order: (1) anything questioning whether the mechanism exists, (2) calibration90and estimation discipline, (3) numerical accuracy, (4) extra experiments, (5) exposition. A reply that91fixes typos first and the accuracy concern last reads as evasive to quantitative-macro referees.9293## Supplementary resources9495- [`red-review-process`](../red-review-process/SKILL.md) — the review model this reply addresses96- [`red-replication-and-data-policy`](../red-replication-and-data-policy/SKILL.md) — updating the archive on revision
brycewang-stanford