# Mksc Rebuttal > Use when drafting the revision and response letter after a Marketing Science revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the Senior/Associate Editor and reviewers across a multi-round process, especially on assumptions, identification, counterfactuals, computation, and replication. Drafts the response after revising; it does not interpret the decision (mksc-review-process). - Skill: `thedixitjain/mksc-rebuttal` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/mksc-rebuttal` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/mksc-rebuttal/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/mksc-rebuttal --- # R&R Response & Rebuttal (mksc-rebuttal) ## When to trigger - You received an MKSC R&R and have planned the revision (via `mksc-review-process`) - You have actually made (or scoped) the manuscript and code changes and need to write the response - You must reconcile conflicting reviewer demands for the AE - A later-round decision asks you to defend or extend prior changes > Write the response **after** revising the manuscript and re-running the analysis — it documents changes, not promises. The process is developmental and typically multi-round; resubmit the revised manuscript, response document, and updated replication materials through ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/mksc), keeping the same handling team where possible and the manuscript blinded. ## Response-document structure 1. **Opening letter to the Senior/Associate Editor.** Thank the team; summarize the most important changes in 2–4 sentences; explicitly address the AE's prioritized concerns. Note where reviewers conflicted and how you resolved it. (The cover letter/response is seen by the Editor/AE; keep the manuscript anonymized.) 2. **Per-reviewer sections.** Restate every comment (numbered/faithfully), then respond. 3. **Point-by-point format**: **Comment** → **Response** (what you did and the modeling/econometric reasoning) → **Location** (section/table). Quote new manuscript text where helpful. ## Responding to MKSC's signature demands - **"Identification is not credible."** Add the explicit identification argument, stronger/alternative instruments, a sensitivity-of-estimates analysis, or a Monte Carlo recovering known parameters — and explain why it resolves the concern (see `mksc-data-analysis`). - **"The model is too restrictive / an assumption drives the result."** Relax the assumption and re-estimate, or show the result is robust to it; report the new comparative static/counterfactual. - **"The counterfactual is not valid."** Re-solve allowing firms to re-optimize, report magnitudes with uncertainty, and bound the scope of validity. - **"Computation / multiple equilibria."** Report solver settings, convergence, multiple starting values, and how multiplicity is handled. - **"Replication."** Update the data-and-code package; confirm the master script reproduces every revised table/figure/counterfactual. - **Adding analysis vs. length.** Heavy new derivations or robustness usually live in the **online appendix**; for a **Frontiers** paper, the 6,000-word total cap still binds, so move detail online. ## Before/after: answering the signature "identification" objection The modal MKSC first-round comment is some form of "I am not convinced the model identifies the effect." Compare responses: - **Weak (citation-padding, will draw a second round):** "We thank the reviewer. We have added references to prior structural work establishing that this class of models is identified (Section 3)." - **Strong (re-analysis, closes the point):** "We agree the argument was implicit. We now (i) state the exclusion restriction explicitly — cost shifter Z shifts supply but not demand conditional on our controls (Section 3.2); (ii) add a Monte Carlo that recovers the known parameters from simulated data within 3% (Appendix C.1); and (iii) report a sensitivity analysis showing the counterfactual moves less than 5% as we perturb the restriction (Table C4). Together these address the concern that [assumption] drove the estimate." The strong version does real work — an explicit restriction, a recovery experiment, and a sensitivity bound — and tells the AE exactly where each lives. ## Reconciling conflicting reviewers for the AE When reviewers pull in opposite directions (R1: "the model is too stylized"; R2: "the model is over-parameterized"), do not silently satisfy one. State the trade-off to the AE, choose a resolution, and justify it: e.g., "We keep the parsimonious specification R2 favored and add R1's richer variant as a robustness check in Appendix D, showing the main counterfactual is unchanged." Surfacing the conflict with a defended choice reads as judgment; picking a side silently reads as evasion. ## Tone and tactics - Be respectful and substantive; concede gracefully and make the change. - Disagree with evidence (an alternative estimation, a robustness result), not assertion. - Address every point; silent omissions read as evasion. - Surface reviewer conflicts to the AE with your chosen resolution. ## Checklist - [ ] Manuscript and code actually revised before the letter was written - [ ] AE's prioritized concerns addressed first and explicitly - [ ] Every reviewer comment restated and answered, with locations - [ ] Identification / assumption / counterfactual demands met with real re-analysis - [ ] Computation and replication-package updates documented - [ ] Declined requests justified with evidence and an alternative test - [ ] Manuscript stays blinded; length/Frontiers cap respected ## Anti-patterns - Writing the response before re-running the analysis. - Answering "deepen identification" by adding citations instead of re-estimating. - A counterfactual left unchanged when firm re-optimization was the objection. - Skipping an inconvenient comment or de-blinding the manuscript. ## Output format ``` 【Round】1st R&R / 2nd / ... 【AE priorities addressed】1... 2... 3... 【Per-reviewer coverage】R1 x/x, R2 x/x, R3 x/x — all answered? 【Major changes】model/identification: ... counterfactual: ... computation: ... 【Replication】updated package reproduces revised exhibits? 【Declined + justification】... 【Status】drafted / final → resubmit via ScholarOne 【Next step】on next decision → mksc-review-process ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Marketing-Science-Skills/skills/mksc-rebuttal/SKILL.md`