artbull-revision-and-response

Revision & Response (artbull-revision-and-response)

A revise-and-resubmit at The Art Bulletin is a real opening: promising work that needs more. The

revision and its response to referees must move every reviewer toward yes while protecting the

contribution — and, because review stays double-blind, the revised files must remain anonymized

and the image/permissions plan must keep pace with any new figures.

When to trigger

• A decision arrived (R&R or revise) and you are planning the revision + response letter
• Referees disagree and you must reconcile their demands
• A referee asked for analysis, evidence, or images that change the paper
• Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The editor signals which points are decisive; solve

those first and let the editor's framing guide how you weigh conflicting referees.

1. Respond point by point — answer every comment. Quote each comment, then respond. Silence reads

as non-compliance.

1. Concede or rebut explicitly, with reasons. For each: say what you changed and where (page,

section, figure number), or push back respectfully on art-historical grounds (the looking, the

documents, the historiography). A well-argued disagreement beats a hollow capitulation.

1. Reconcile conflicting referees openly. When one wants the opposite of another, say so, choose a

principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor.

1. Protect the contribution. Strengthen the argument and the evidence; resist changes that dilute

the thesis or over-extend it. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.

1. Keep anonymity and images in sync. The revised manuscript stays double-blind (Word, no

self-revealing notes); any new figures need their permissions cleared and high-resolution

files planned (see artbull-images-and-permissions).

Response-letter format

For each referee comment:

> [Quoted referee comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree, on art-historical grounds].
Change: [Section / page / figure number where the revision appears].

Open with a short summary of the main changes for the editor; group by referee; end each entry

with the location of every change so the editor can verify quickly.

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or quietly merging away a comment
• Capitulating to a request that breaks the argument just to please a referee
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward referees
• "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
• Adding a new figure without clearing its permissions
• Letting the revised manuscript lose anonymity

Triage grid for referee demands at the College Art Association quarterly

Not every comment carries equal weight, and some pull against each other. Sort each demand first.

| Comment type | Default response | Watch for (this venue) |

|---|---|---|

| Editor-flagged decisive point | Solve first; lead the cover note with it | The editor's letter is the rubric — it outranks any one referee |

| Reasonable evidentiary ask | Concede; add the source/figure, cite the page | A new figure triggers a fresh permissions clearance |

| Demand that would dilute the thesis | Rebut respectfully on art-historical grounds | Gutting the claim to please a referee weakens it |

Worked vignette: reconciling two referees who want opposite things

Suppose an R&R arrives on an attribution article: Referee A wants the attribution stated boldly as

fact, Referee B wants it hedged to "attributed to." The author holds the certainty term where the

evidence licenses it and explains the conflict openly: bolder wording would outrun the underdrawing

evidence, softer would ignore the inventory link. A referee also

asks for a new detail crop, so the author **clears its permission and stages the high-resolution

file, quoting each comment with its location**.

Response-letter pitfalls and the disciplinary correction

• "You thank the reviewer but changed nothing." Pair each acknowledgment with a real change and its

location, or an argued rebuttal on art-historical grounds — and keep the resubmitted manuscript Word

and self-blind so a new acknowledgment cannot taint the double-blind round.

Calibration anchor (hedge where uncertain)

• An R&R is a genuine opening, not a rejection in disguise: it is the usual route for promising work

(confirm against the journal's current submission guidelines).

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every referee comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with reason + change location
【Conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】no dilution of the thesis? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + new-figure permissions】in order? [Y/N]
【Next】resubmit to the editor

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — image/permissions and manuscript tooling for new figures
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — double-blind policy and author-permissions responsibility