Review of Finance Rebuttal
Use this after an RoF decision letter. Because RoF aims to reach a final decision by the
second round, the first revision is your one real chance — make the round-one response
decisive rather than holding arguments back.
When to trigger
- An RoF R&R or first-round decision with referee reports has arrived.
- You need to sequence revisions and draft a point-by-point response.
- A second-round report raises a new concern and you must decide how to handle it.
Response strategy
- Separate the referees' major concerns required for publication from their suggestions,
mirroring the two-bucket structure RoF asks referees to use; resolve every major concern
fully before polishing suggestions.
- Answer the finance contribution first, then identification, theory, data, robustness, and
exposition.
- Show, don't assert: point each response to the exact revised table, figure, section, and
page; quote short new text.
- Keep the revised manuscript within the hard 60-page total cap (appendices, bibliography,
figures, tables all count).
- If a new referee concern appears in round two, check whether it was raised in round one and
whether it is tied to your changes; under RoF's two-round philosophy a genuinely new,
unrelated concern may fall outside scope — raise this politely, via the editor, and rarely.
- Authors own the paper: you may decline a suggestion that would harm it, with reasons.
- Update replication programs, pseudo-data, logs, and the Data Availability Statement
alongside manuscript revisions.
Point-by-point skeleton
Referee 1, Major Concern 1 (identification):
Restate: <one-sentence neutral paraphrase>
Action: <new Table 4 cols 3-5; revised Section 5.2, pp. 18-20>
Result: <coefficient now X (s.e. Y); conclusion unchanged or sharpened>
Text: "<at most two quoted sentences of new manuscript text>"
Referee 1, Suggestion 1: adopted / adapted because ... / declined because ...
Editor letter (1 page): each major concern -> its fix; page-cap accounting
(what moved to the internet appendix); code, pseudo-data, and DAS updates
shipped with this revision.
Triage table for common RoF report lines
| The report says |
Likely intent |
Round-one response |
| "Identification is not convincing" (major) |
spine doubt |
new design evidence — pre-trends, placebo, alternative estimator — not prose |
| "The magnitude seems implausible" |
calibration doubt |
benchmark against two published estimates; reconcile or correct |
| "Please also examine X, Y, and Z" (suggestion) |
breadth wish |
run the cheap ones into the internet appendix; decline scope creep with reasons |
| "The authors should cite [their papers]" |
citation nudge |
cite when genuinely relevant given RoF's author-responsibility norm; otherwise draw the boundary politely |
| "The European sample limits generality" |
external validity |
add the US or cross-region contrast, or argue why the institution isolates a universal force |
Worked example — page-cap arithmetic in the revision
Illustrative. The R&R asks for three robustness exercises and a heterogeneity split. Four
new tables at roughly 0.8 pages each plus notes cost about 3.5 pages against the hard
60-page ceiling. The plan: one new body table answering the bucket-1 concern; three
exhibits to the internet appendix with one-line pointers; 1.5 pages of introduction
trimmed — net +0.3 pages. State this accounting in the editor letter so the cap is
visibly respected without burying the new evidence.
Resubmission hygiene
- Refresh the double-blind scrub: new acknowledgements, conference thanks, or repository
links added during revision are classic anonymity leaks at this journal.
- If results changed materially, regenerate logs and the pseudo-dataset so the package
matches the revised exhibits — a stale packet undermines the response letter.
- Verify current resubmission mechanics and any fees on Editorial Express and the
journal's current author guidelines before uploading.
Anti-patterns
- Treating suggestions as binding while under-addressing a major concern.
- Drafting the letter before the revised manuscript exists.
- Saving a key result or argument for round two — it may simply be ignored.
- Defensive, adjective-heavy pushback instead of new evidence.
Output format
[Decision] R&R / reject-resubmit / conditional acceptance / other
[Revision thesis] <one sentence>
[Required concerns] <issue -> manuscript change>
[Suggestions] <accept, partially address, or explain>
[Code/data updates] <needed or complete>
1---2name: rof-rebuttal3description: Use when drafting a Review of Finance response letter and revision plan after an R&R, especially under the two-round philosophy, top-three-finance standards, code/data conditions, and page-cap constraints.4---56# Review of Finance Rebuttal78Use this after an RoF decision letter. Because RoF aims to reach a final decision by the9second round, the first revision is your one real chance — make the round-one response10decisive rather than holding arguments back.1112## When to trigger1314- An RoF R&R or first-round decision with referee reports has arrived.15- You need to sequence revisions and draft a point-by-point response.16- A second-round report raises a new concern and you must decide how to handle it.1718## Response strategy1920- Separate the referees' major concerns required for publication from their suggestions,21 mirroring the two-bucket structure RoF asks referees to use; resolve every major concern22 fully before polishing suggestions.23- Answer the finance contribution first, then identification, theory, data, robustness, and24 exposition.25- Show, don't assert: point each response to the exact revised table, figure, section, and26 page; quote short new text.27- Keep the revised manuscript within the hard 60-page total cap (appendices, bibliography,28 figures, tables all count).29- If a new referee concern appears in round two, check whether it was raised in round one and30 whether it is tied to your changes; under RoF's two-round philosophy a genuinely new,31 unrelated concern may fall outside scope — raise this politely, via the editor, and rarely.32- Authors own the paper: you may decline a suggestion that would harm it, with reasons.33- Update replication programs, pseudo-data, logs, and the Data Availability Statement34 alongside manuscript revisions.3536## Point-by-point skeleton3738```text39Referee 1, Major Concern 1 (identification):40 Restate: <one-sentence neutral paraphrase>41 Action: <new Table 4 cols 3-5; revised Section 5.2, pp. 18-20>42 Result: <coefficient now X (s.e. Y); conclusion unchanged or sharpened>43 Text: "<at most two quoted sentences of new manuscript text>"44Referee 1, Suggestion 1: adopted / adapted because ... / declined because ...45Editor letter (1 page): each major concern -> its fix; page-cap accounting46 (what moved to the internet appendix); code, pseudo-data, and DAS updates47 shipped with this revision.48```4950## Triage table for common RoF report lines5152| The report says | Likely intent | Round-one response |53|---|---|---|54| "Identification is not convincing" (major) | spine doubt | new design evidence — pre-trends, placebo, alternative estimator — not prose |55| "The magnitude seems implausible" | calibration doubt | benchmark against two published estimates; reconcile or correct |56| "Please also examine X, Y, and Z" (suggestion) | breadth wish | run the cheap ones into the internet appendix; decline scope creep with reasons |57| "The authors should cite [their papers]" | citation nudge | cite when genuinely relevant given RoF's author-responsibility norm; otherwise draw the boundary politely |58| "The European sample limits generality" | external validity | add the US or cross-region contrast, or argue why the institution isolates a universal force |5960## Worked example — page-cap arithmetic in the revision6162Illustrative. The R&R asks for three robustness exercises and a heterogeneity split. Four63new tables at roughly 0.8 pages each plus notes cost about 3.5 pages against the hard6460-page ceiling. The plan: one new body table answering the bucket-1 concern; three65exhibits to the internet appendix with one-line pointers; 1.5 pages of introduction66trimmed — net +0.3 pages. State this accounting in the editor letter so the cap is67visibly respected without burying the new evidence.6869## Resubmission hygiene7071- Refresh the double-blind scrub: new acknowledgements, conference thanks, or repository72 links added during revision are classic anonymity leaks at this journal.73- If results changed materially, regenerate logs and the pseudo-dataset so the package74 matches the revised exhibits — a stale packet undermines the response letter.75- Verify current resubmission mechanics and any fees on Editorial Express and the76 journal's current author guidelines before uploading.7778## Anti-patterns7980- Treating suggestions as binding while under-addressing a major concern.81- Drafting the letter before the revised manuscript exists.82- Saving a key result or argument for round two — it may simply be ignored.83- Defensive, adjective-heavy pushback instead of new evidence.8485## Output format8687```text88[Decision] R&R / reject-resubmit / conditional acceptance / other89[Revision thesis] <one sentence>90[Required concerns] <issue -> manuscript change>91[Suggestions] <accept, partially address, or explain>92[Code/data updates] <needed or complete>93```
brycewang-stanford