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>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Review-of-Finance-Skills/skills/rof-rebuttal/SKILL.md
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---5
6
7# Review of Finance Rebuttal
8
9Use this after an RoF decision letter. Because RoF aims to reach a final decision by the
10second round, the first revision is your one real chance — make the round-one response
11decisive rather than holding arguments back.
12
13## When to trigger
14
15- An RoF R&R or first-round decision with referee reports has arrived.
16- You need to sequence revisions and draft a point-by-point response.
17- A second-round report raises a new concern and you must decide how to handle it.
18
19## Response strategy
20
21- Separate the referees' major concerns required for publication from their suggestions,
22 mirroring the two-bucket structure RoF asks referees to use; resolve every major concern
23 fully before polishing suggestions.
24- Answer the finance contribution first, then identification, theory, data, robustness, and
25 exposition.
26- Show, don't assert: point each response to the exact revised table, figure, section, and
27 page; quote short new text.
28- Keep the revised manuscript within the hard 60-page total cap (appendices, bibliography,
29 figures, tables all count).
30- If a new referee concern appears in round two, check whether it was raised in round one and
31 whether it is tied to your changes; under RoF's two-round philosophy a genuinely new,
32 unrelated concern may fall outside scope — raise this politely, via the editor, and rarely.
33- Authors own the paper: you may decline a suggestion that would harm it, with reasons.
34- Update replication programs, pseudo-data, logs, and the Data Availability Statement
35 alongside manuscript revisions.
36
37## Point-by-point skeleton
38
39```text
40Referee 1, Major Concern 1 (identification):
41 Restate: <one-sentence neutral paraphrase>
42 Action: <new Table 4 cols 3-5; revised Section 5.2, pp. 18-20>
43 Result: <coefficient now X (s.e. Y); conclusion unchanged or sharpened>
44 Text: "<at most two quoted sentences of new manuscript text>"
45Referee 1, Suggestion 1: adopted / adapted because ... / declined because ...
46Editor letter (1 page): each major concern -> its fix; page-cap accounting
47 (what moved to the internet appendix); code, pseudo-data, and DAS updates
48 shipped with this revision.
49```
50
51## Triage table for common RoF report lines
52
53| The report says | Likely intent | Round-one response |
54|---|---|---|
55| "Identification is not convincing" (major) | spine doubt | new design evidence — pre-trends, placebo, alternative estimator — not prose |
56| "The magnitude seems implausible" | calibration doubt | benchmark against two published estimates; reconcile or correct |
57| "Please also examine X, Y, and Z" (suggestion) | breadth wish | run the cheap ones into the internet appendix; decline scope creep with reasons |
58| "The authors should cite [their papers]" | citation nudge | cite when genuinely relevant given RoF's author-responsibility norm; otherwise draw the boundary politely |
59| "The European sample limits generality" | external validity | add the US or cross-region contrast, or argue why the institution isolates a universal force |
60
61## Worked example — page-cap arithmetic in the revision
62
63Illustrative. The R&R asks for three robustness exercises and a heterogeneity split. Four
64new tables at roughly 0.8 pages each plus notes cost about 3.5 pages against the hard
6560-page ceiling. The plan: one new body table answering the bucket-1 concern; three
66exhibits to the internet appendix with one-line pointers; 1.5 pages of introduction
67trimmed — net +0.3 pages. State this accounting in the editor letter so the cap is
68visibly respected without burying the new evidence.
69
70## Resubmission hygiene
71
72- Refresh the double-blind scrub: new acknowledgements, conference thanks, or repository
73 links added during revision are classic anonymity leaks at this journal.
74- If results changed materially, regenerate logs and the pseudo-dataset so the package
75 matches the revised exhibits — a stale packet undermines the response letter.
76- Verify current resubmission mechanics and any fees on Editorial Express and the
77 journal's current author guidelines before uploading.
78
79## Anti-patterns
80
81- Treating suggestions as binding while under-addressing a major concern.
82- Drafting the letter before the revised manuscript exists.
83- Saving a key result or argument for round two — it may simply be ignored.
84- Defensive, adjective-heavy pushback instead of new evidence.
85
86## Output format
87
88```text
89[Decision] R&R / reject-resubmit / conditional acceptance / other
90[Revision thesis] <one sentence>
91[Required concerns] <issue -> manuscript change>
92[Suggestions] <accept, partially address, or explain>
93[Code/data updates] <needed or complete>
94```
95
96---
97
98**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Review-of-Finance-Skills/skills/rof-rebuttal/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain