---
name: brycewang-stanford/asr-rebuttal
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/brycewang-stanford-asr-rebuttal@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: 02028355ea92
---

# R&R Rebuttal (asr-rebuttal)

An ASR **R&R** is the normal road to publication for a promising paper — and it usually asks for
**substantial** revision. Reviewers often come from **different methodological traditions**, so the
response letter must satisfy a skeptic of your method without breaking the paper, while the editor
adjudicates.

## When to trigger

- An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Reviewers disagree (e.g., a quantitative and a qualitative reviewer want different things)
- A reviewer requests analyses or evidence that would change the paper's claims
- Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

## Strategy

1. **Read the editor's letter as the rubric.** The editor flags which points are decisive — solve
   those first; the editor adjudicates conflicts among reviewers.
2. **One point-by-point response, every comment addressed.** Quote each comment, then respond. Never
   skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. **Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence.** For each: did what was asked (say where, with the
   new text/table number), or push back **respectfully with a reason** (theory, design, or evidence).
   A well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the paper.
4. **Reconcile cross-method reviewers openly.** When a quantitative reviewer and a qualitative
   reviewer pull in opposite directions, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to
   the editor — don't silently satisfy one and ignore the other.
5. **Protect the contribution.** Add robustness, evidence, and clarifications; resist changes that
   dilute the broad-significance claim or the portable mechanism that earned the R&R.
6. **Keep masking intact** in the revised manuscript, and update data documentation so any new
   tables/figures stay grounded (see `asr-data-and-transparency`).

## Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

```
> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].
```

Open with a short **summary of the main changes** to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry
with the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly.

## Triage grid for an ASR R&R

ASR R&Rs are substantial and the panel often crosses traditions, so sort every comment before drafting.
The editors adjudicate; the letter's job is to make adjudication easy.

| Comment type | Default response |
|--------------|------------------|
| Editor's decisive point | do it; never argue these away |
| Result you can produce | run it; report honestly even if mixed |
| Cross-method standard | meet it on its own terms |
| Request that dilutes significance | rebut respectfully with a reason |

## Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A neighborhood-effects paper gets an R&R where R1 (quant) wants a sibling fixed-effects check and R2
(ethnographic) doubts the mechanism is social rather than selection.

```
R1: "Add within-family comparison."
  Response: Sibling FE (Table 4); effect attenuates 0.31→0.22 SD, still significant (CI 0.09–0.35).
R2: "Could be selection, not a social process."
  Response: Placebo on pre-move outcomes (null, CI −0.04–0.06) + 6 excerpts illustrating the
  mechanism. Change: §5.3, Appendix B.
```

The letter concedes where evidence warrants and protects the contribution by showing the mechanism
survives the cross-method probe.

## Referee pushback → ASR-specific fix

- *"The revision didn't change anything."* → End each entry with an exact location; visible change
  beats a thank-you.
- *"You dismissed my standard."* → Address it in its own idiom and say why your choice respects it.

## Calibration anchors

- **The editor's letter is the rubric.** At ASR the editor weights reviewers; solving the decisive
  points first converts an R&R.
- **A reasoned disagreement is allowed.** Defending the paper's logic is expected at the flagship;
  capitulation that weakens the argument is worse.
- **Substantial means substantial.** Plan for a heavy revision; a light pass reads as non-engagement.

## Anti-patterns

- Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
- Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic just to please a reviewer
- Dismissing a cross-method reviewer's standards instead of addressing them
- "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
- New analyses that quietly contradict the original claim without acknowledgment
- Reintroducing identifying information into the revised (still masked) manuscript

## Output format

```
【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Cross-method conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of broad significance? [Y/N]
【Masking + documentation updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via Sage Track
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — ASR review model and ethics