Jmr Rebuttal

R&R Revision & Response (jmr-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You received a JMR R&R and need to plan revisions and the response letter
• Reviewers and the Coeditor raise concerns spanning rigor and contribution
• New studies/analyses are needed but the print paper is near the 50-page limit
• You must reconcile conflicting reviewer requests

Plan before you draft

1. Triage every point by which bar it targets — rigor (identification, manipulation, exact p-values/SEs/effect sizes, robustness, replication) or substance (contribution, framing, "what do we learn?"). JMR's dual standard means both must end up satisfied.
2. Find the Coeditor's priorities. The editor's letter signals which concerns are pivotal; weight your effort there. With two independent reviewers, expect some conflict — resolve it explicitly rather than splitting the difference silently.
3. Decide where new material lives. New robustness, additional studies, and estimation detail usually belong in the 'W'-prefixed Web Appendix (excluded from the 50-page limit), with a short pointer in the print text — this lets you respond fully without blowing the page budget.

Draft the point-by-point response

• Reproduce each comment verbatim, then respond directly beneath it.
• For each: state what you changed, where (section / page / "Table W3 in the Web Appendix"), and why it resolves the concern.
• For rigor points: run the requested test, report exact p-values (three digits), standard errors, and effect sizes in AMA number style, and add the supporting exhibit (main text or Web Appendix).
• For substance points: sharpen the contribution sentences (see jmr-contribution-framing); if a new study is needed to establish the mechanism or generalizability, run it and report it.
• Where you disagree, do so respectfully with evidence — JMR reviewers are domain experts; a reasoned, data-backed pushback is acceptable when the editor's framing allows.
• Reconcile conflicting reviewer requests openly: explain the trade-off and the choice, and let the editor adjudicate.

Keep conformance intact

• Re-check the 50-page limit after additions; move overflow to the Web Appendix.
• Keep the Web Appendix a single PDF with 'W'-prefixed exhibits; update the Data Availability Statement and AI disclosure if methods changed.
• Maintain double-anonymization in the revised manuscript and response letter.

Rigor/substance response ledger

Track each reviewer item in a ledger before writing the letter:

The ledger should reveal whether the revision is balanced. A response that fixes all rigor points but leaves the "what do we learn?" objection untouched is still at risk; a response that improves framing but leaves exact-statistics or replication gaps is also not ready.

Anti-patterns

• A response letter written before the manuscript is actually revised.
• Cosmetic replies ("we have addressed this") with no concrete change or location.
• Letting new analyses push the print paper over 50 pages instead of using the Web Appendix.
• Capitulating to a reviewer in a way that breaks identification or over-claims.
• Reporting added results with thresholds/asterisks instead of exact statistics.
• Treating rigor and substance as separate reviewer silos instead of satisfying both in the revised claim.

Output format

[Target] JMR
[Decision round] R&R #
[Per-comment plan] bar (rigor/substance) → change → location (main / Table Wx)
[Response ledger] all comments mapped to rigor/substance evidence
[Conflicts] reviewer A vs B → resolution + editor adjudication
[New material] Web Appendix additions; 50-page check
[Conformance] DAS / AI disclosure / anonymization updated
[Next step] resubmit → jmr-review-process

Resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md
• ../../resources/external_tools.md

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Journal-of-Marketing-Research-Skills/skills/jmr-rebuttal/SKILL.md