---
name: revacc-rebuttal
description: Use when a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) revise-and-resubmit has arrived and you must plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — resolving the editor's first-order concerns (identification, the channel, measurement, or the model) before writing the letter. Plans and drafts the response; it does not run the new analyses from scratch (revacc-data-analysis) or re-run the submission preflight (revacc-submission).
---

# R&R Revision & Response (revacc-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- You received a RAST **revise-and-resubmit** and must plan the revision
- You need to draft the point-by-point response to the editor and referees
- Referees disagree and you must triage which concerns are binding
- New analyses change tables and the manuscript needs re-aligning
- An analytical paper's referee disputes an assumption or a proposition

## An R&R at RAST is a strong signal — treat it accordingly

Because RAST often decides on the first round, an R&R is a meaningful vote of confidence rather than routine. That raises the stakes on getting the revision right: you may not get a third round, so resolve the **editor's first-order concerns substantively**, not rhetorically. Do the analytical (or modeling) work **before** drafting the letter — a RAST R&R turns on whether you have actually strengthened **identification, the economic channel, construct measurement, or the model**, not on rhetorical skill.

## Triage the referee points

- **First-order (must resolve):** endogeneity/identification threats, an unidentified channel, fragile or invalid construct measurement, sample-construction concerns; for analytical papers, a load-bearing assumption a referee rejects or a proposition whose generality is questioned. These usually require **new analyses** (a cleaner setting, additional diagnostics, alternative proxies, falsification tests) or **new modeling** (relaxing an assumption, an extension, a robustness proposition).
- **Second-order (resolve or reason):** additional robustness, exposition, framing, extra citations. Implement where cheap; otherwise explain clearly.
- **Conflicting referees:** do not whipsaw the paper. State the trade-off and follow the **editor's** steer; note where you sided with one referee and why.

The editor's letter is the binding map — it tells you which points are first-order. Address those first.

## Draft the response letter

- **One point, one response.** Quote each comment, then give your response and **point to the exact change** (section, table number, new analysis, new proposition).
- **Show the new evidence.** For identification/measurement concerns, present the new table or diagnostic in the letter (or a response appendix), not just a promise. For analytical concerns, show the revised result.
- **Be candid about limits.** Where a concern cannot be fully resolved, state what the design (or model) can and cannot deliver, and add the scope condition to the paper.
- **Respectful and specific.** Thank referees, concede valid points, defend with evidence — never dismiss.

## Keep the manuscript consistent and anonymized

Re-align variable names, hypothesis labels, table numbers, and the contribution statement after the revision so the paper still reads as one story. Keep it **double-anonymized** for the next round (no acknowledgements or self-citation leaks introduced during revision). Refresh the data-provenance trail so it regenerates all revised exhibits; confirm any current data/code expectation on the official page (待核实; 检索于 2026-06).

## Checklist

- [ ] Revision analyses / modeling completed **before** drafting the response
- [ ] Editor's first-order concerns identified and substantively resolved
- [ ] Each referee comment quoted with a specific, change-anchored response
- [ ] New identification/measurement/model evidence shown, not promised
- [ ] Conflicting referees reconciled per the editor's steer
- [ ] Manuscript re-aligned (names, labels, table numbers, contribution) and still anonymized
- [ ] Provenance trail regenerates all revised exhibits

## Anti-patterns

- **Writing the letter before doing the work.**
- **Treating all referees equally** instead of following the editor's priorities.
- **Promising robustness** instead of showing it.
- **Cosmetic responses** to first-order identification or measurement concerns.
- **Squandering a strong signal:** under-investing in an R&R that RAST rarely grants.
- **Leaking anonymity** through acknowledgements or self-cites added during revision.

## Output format

```text
【Editor first-order asks】[...] — resolved by ...
【Referee triage】R1/R2/R3 first-order vs second-order
【New work done】identification / measurement / falsification / modeling ...
【Response letter】per-point, change-anchored draft status
【Conflicts reconciled】editor's steer followed where ...
【Consistency & anonymity】manuscript re-aligned; still double-blind
【Next step】resubmit via Editorial Manager (revacc-submission for preflight)
```