R&R Rebuttal (jet-rebuttal)
When to trigger
- You received an R&R (or a reject-and-resubmit) from JET and must reply to referees
- A referee flagged a gap in a proof, an unstated assumption, or a missing case
- You need to position generalizations the editor and two referees asked for
How JET R&Rs work
- Decisions come from the editor synthesizing two-plus single-anonymized referee reports.
Because review is single-blind, referees may know your prior work — engage substance, not identity.
- For theory, the highest-stakes comments are about correctness and scope: an alleged hole in a
proof, an assumption doing more work than acknowledged, a claimed "general" result that secretly
needs finiteness/continuity/convexity, or a counterexample to a stated proposition.
Response strategy
- Triage by severity. Correctness issues first (a broken lemma sinks the paper), then generality
and necessity-of-assumption questions, then exposition.
- For a proof gap: either supply the corrected/complete argument or, if the result is false as
stated, narrow the claim to what the proof supports and say so plainly. Never paper over a hole.
- For "is assumption X necessary?": answer with a counterexample (X dropped → result fails) or
a generalization (X weakened, result survives). Add the weaker statement as the new main result
where credible.
- For exposition: restate the theorem in the body, move heavy machinery to an appendix
(
thm-restate), and tighten notation.
- Show the diff. Quote each comment, give a direct answer, and cite the exact section / equation /
theorem number in the revised
.tex that implements the change.
Severity ladder for theory reports
| Report claim |
Stakes |
First move |
Letter posture |
| "The proof of Lemma k has a gap" |
paper-sinking if real |
re-derive the step from scratch; do not pattern-match the old argument |
corrected argument in full, or a narrowed claim |
| "Here is a counterexample to Proposition j" |
decisive either way |
verify it against every numbered assumption |
if valid: thank, repair or narrow; if it violates an assumption: show which line fails |
| "Is Assumption A2 necessary?" |
scope of the contribution |
attempt the weakening; else construct the dropping-A2 example |
a new Example or a generalized theorem |
| "This follows from [known theorem]" |
originality |
write out the claimed reduction or its failure point |
the precise reason the known theorem does not apply |
| "Proofs are unreadable" |
acceptance friction |
restate theorems, add a lemma roadmap, offload to appendix |
a table mapping moved material to new locations |
When the referee's counterexample is right
- Verify first. Check it satisfies all your numbered assumptions — many alleged
counterexamples violate a regularity condition, and showing which line fails ends the issue.
- Locate the first false step. If the example is valid, find the exact line of the proof it
breaks; everything before that line survives.
- Repair or retreat. Add the missing condition loudly (own the generality loss in the letter
and the introduction), or restate the result at the strength the proof actually delivers.
- Credit it. If the referee's example now appears in the paper, acknowledge the referee.
Response-letter skeleton
Editor summary (≤1 page, theorem-level):
Theorem 1 unchanged; Proposition 2 narrowed (now requires A4 — see R1.3);
new Example 3 shows A2 cannot be dropped (R2.1); Appendix C rewritten for readability.
Per referee, per point:
[R1.3] "<verbatim comment>"
→ Type: correctness
→ Response: corrected the Lemma 2 step; the missing case is handled by new eq. (12)
→ Location: §4.2 and Appendix B.1; flagged in the attached latexdiff
Attachments: revised .tex, latexdiff PDF, this letter.
Anti-patterns
- Defending a result you now know is false instead of narrowing it
- "We thank the referee" with no concrete change or location
- Adding assumptions silently to rescue a proof without flagging the reduced generality
- Re-disclosing or hiding generative-AI use inconsistently from the original submission
Output format
【Referee N · Comment k】<verbatim>
→ Type: correctness | generality/necessity | exposition
→ Response: <corrected proof / counterexample / narrowed claim>
→ Change at: §x / Prop y / eq (z) in revised .tex
【Net effect】result strengthened / scope clarified / claim narrowed
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Journal-of-Economic-Theory-Skills/skills/jet-rebuttal/SKILL.md
1---2name: jet-rebuttal3description: Use when building the response letter for a Journal of Economic Theory (JET) revise-and-resubmit — address each single-anonymized referee's correctness, generality, and exposition points, supply corrected or strengthened proofs or counterexamples, and show exactly where the .tex was changed. For R&Rs; it does not invent referee taste.4---567# R&R Rebuttal (jet-rebuttal)89## When to trigger1011- You received an R&R (or a reject-and-resubmit) from JET and must reply to referees12- A referee flagged a gap in a proof, an unstated assumption, or a missing case13- You need to position generalizations the editor and two referees asked for1415## How JET R&Rs work1617- Decisions come from the **editor** synthesizing **two-plus single-anonymized referee** reports.18 Because review is **single-blind**, referees may know your prior work — engage substance, not identity.19- For theory, the highest-stakes comments are about **correctness and scope**: an alleged hole in a20 proof, an assumption doing more work than acknowledged, a claimed "general" result that secretly21 needs finiteness/continuity/convexity, or a counterexample to a stated proposition.2223## Response strategy24251. **Triage by severity.** Correctness issues first (a broken lemma sinks the paper), then generality26 and necessity-of-assumption questions, then exposition.272. **For a proof gap:** either supply the corrected/complete argument or, if the result is false as28 stated, **narrow the claim** to what the proof supports and say so plainly. Never paper over a hole.293. **For "is assumption X necessary?":** answer with a **counterexample** (X dropped → result fails) or30 a **generalization** (X weakened, result survives). Add the weaker statement as the new main result31 where credible.324. **For exposition:** restate the theorem in the body, move heavy machinery to an appendix33 (`thm-restate`), and tighten notation.345. **Show the diff.** Quote each comment, give a direct answer, and cite the **exact section / equation /35 theorem number** in the revised `.tex` that implements the change.3637## Severity ladder for theory reports3839| Report claim | Stakes | First move | Letter posture |40|---|---|---|---|41| "The proof of Lemma k has a gap" | paper-sinking if real | re-derive the step from scratch; do not pattern-match the old argument | corrected argument in full, or a narrowed claim |42| "Here is a counterexample to Proposition j" | decisive either way | verify it against every numbered assumption | if valid: thank, repair or narrow; if it violates an assumption: show which line fails |43| "Is Assumption A2 necessary?" | scope of the contribution | attempt the weakening; else construct the dropping-A2 example | a new Example or a generalized theorem |44| "This follows from [known theorem]" | originality | write out the claimed reduction or its failure point | the precise reason the known theorem does not apply |45| "Proofs are unreadable" | acceptance friction | restate theorems, add a lemma roadmap, offload to appendix | a table mapping moved material to new locations |4647## When the referee's counterexample is right48491. **Verify first.** Check it satisfies all your numbered assumptions — many alleged50 counterexamples violate a regularity condition, and showing which line fails ends the issue.512. **Locate the first false step.** If the example is valid, find the exact line of the proof it52 breaks; everything before that line survives.533. **Repair or retreat.** Add the missing condition loudly (own the generality loss in the letter54 *and* the introduction), or restate the result at the strength the proof actually delivers.554. **Credit it.** If the referee's example now appears in the paper, acknowledge the referee.5657## Response-letter skeleton5859```text60Editor summary (≤1 page, theorem-level):61 Theorem 1 unchanged; Proposition 2 narrowed (now requires A4 — see R1.3);62 new Example 3 shows A2 cannot be dropped (R2.1); Appendix C rewritten for readability.63Per referee, per point:64 [R1.3] "<verbatim comment>"65 → Type: correctness66 → Response: corrected the Lemma 2 step; the missing case is handled by new eq. (12)67 → Location: §4.2 and Appendix B.1; flagged in the attached latexdiff68Attachments: revised .tex, latexdiff PDF, this letter.69```7071## Anti-patterns7273- Defending a result you now know is false instead of narrowing it74- "We thank the referee" with no concrete change or location75- Adding assumptions silently to rescue a proof without flagging the reduced generality76- Re-disclosing or hiding generative-AI use inconsistently from the original submission7778## Output format7980```81【Referee N · Comment k】<verbatim>82 → Type: correctness | generality/necessity | exposition83 → Response: <corrected proof / counterexample / narrowed claim>84 → Change at: §x / Prop y / eq (z) in revised .tex85【Net effect】result strengthened / scope clarified / claim narrowed86```8788---8990**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Economic-Theory-Skills/skills/jet-rebuttal/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain