# Eer Rebuttal

> Use when a European Economic Review (EER) decision letter arrives (R&R or reject-with-appeal grounds) and a response strategy and letter are needed. Plans the revision and drafts the point-by-point response; it does not run new estimation or rewrite the whole paper.

- Skill: `thedixitjain/eer-rebuttal` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/eer-rebuttal`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/eer-rebuttal/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/eer-rebuttal

---



# Rebuttal & Response Letter (eer-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- An EER **R&R** (major or minor) arrived and you need a revision plan + response letter
- Referee reports conflict and you must triage what to do
- You are weighing a formal **appeal** of a reject (one appeal per submission)
- You need to convert reports into a credible, point-by-point response

## The EER revision reality

EER decisions are **accept / R&R (major or minor) / reject**, with desk rejects possible without review. Under **single-anonymized** review the referees know who you are — the response must be **professional, complete, and non-defensive**. The editor decides; referees advise. A successful R&R does the **substantive work the reports ask for**, documents it transparently, and makes the editor's re-read easy. EER permits **one formal appeal** per submission (Elsevier appeal policy; the decision is final) — reserve it for a clear factual/process error, not disagreement with judgment.

## Building the response

### 1. Triage the reports
- Sort every comment into: **must-do** (identification/robustness/credibility), **should-do** (clarity, added test), **discuss-only** (out-of-scope or contradicting another referee).
- Flag **conflicts between referees** and let the editor see you handled both fairly.
- Identify the **one or two objections that gate acceptance** and over-deliver on those.

### 2. Do the substantive work first
- Re-run identification/robustness the reports demand (`eer-identification`, `eer-robustness`) **before** writing the letter.
- If you decline a request, give a **reasoned, evidenced** decline — never a flat refusal.

### 3. Draft the point-by-point letter
- **Quote each comment**, then respond; state **what changed and where** (section/table/page).
- Lead each response with the **action taken**, then the explanation.
- Keep a respectful, collegial tone; thank referees for specific improvements.
- Add a **summary of major changes** at the top for the editor.

### 4. Keep the paper coherent
- Ensure revisions do not break the narrative; re-check abstract/intro/highlights (`eer-writing-style`).
- Update the **replication package** if results changed (`eer-replication-package`).

## Checklist

- [ ] Every referee/editor comment is quoted and answered (none skipped)
- [ ] Each response leads with the action and cites the exact location of the change
- [ ] The 1–2 acceptance-gating objections are over-delivered
- [ ] Referee conflicts surfaced and resolved fairly for the editor
- [ ] Declines are reasoned and evidenced, never dismissive
- [ ] Summary-of-changes for the editor at the top of the letter
- [ ] Paper still coherent; abstract/intro/highlights re-checked; replication package updated
- [ ] Tone professional throughout (referees know the authors)

## Anti-patterns

- A defensive letter that argues with referees instead of addressing them
- Claiming "we have addressed this" without pointing to the concrete change
- Cherry-picking easy comments and ignoring the hard, acceptance-gating one
- Letting two referees' conflicting demands go unreconciled for the editor
- Filing an appeal over a judgment disagreement (appeals are for clear errors; decision is final)
- Changing results without updating the replication package or the affected exhibits

## Worked vignette (illustrative)

An R&R has three reports. Referee 1 (gating): "TWFE is biased." Referee 2: "result may be crisis-driven." Referee 3 (out-of-scope): "add a structural model." Plan: re-estimate with Callaway–Sant'Anna and add leave-out-period robustness (over-deliver on 1 and 2); for 3, explain in the letter why a full structural model is beyond scope but add a reduced-form mechanism test as a good-faith partial response. The letter opens with a change summary, quotes each comment, and points to the exact revised tables — making the editor's decision easy.

## Output format

```
【Decision】R&R major / R&R minor / reject (appeal grounds?)
【Triage】must-do / should-do / discuss-only (with gating items flagged)
【Substantive work done】identification/robustness re-runs completed? [Y/N]
【Letter】each comment quoted + action-first response + change location? [Y/N]
【Coherence】abstract/intro/highlights + replication package updated? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via Editorial Manager (or eer-submission for a fresh target)
```

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `European-Economic-Review-Skills/skills/eer-rebuttal/SKILL.md`