ectj-rebuttal

EctJ Rebuttal

Use this after an EctJ decision letter. Reopen the decision letter, RES review-process page,

and current author instructions before setting deadlines.

Response strategy

• Separate econometric-validity issues from exposition, simulation, application, and

replication issues.

• Answer assumption and proof objections with exact theorem, lemma, or appendix changes.
• If a referee asks for broader treatment, decide whether it belongs in the printed paper,

online supplement, or a clearly scoped limitation.

• Add Monte Carlo or empirical checks only when they resolve a decision-critical concern.
• Preserve compactness; an R&R that bloats beyond the EctJ page discipline can create a new

conformance problem.

• Track the RES resubmission clock; the source map records normal windows of one month and

sometimes three months.

Revision triage

Classify each requested change before writing:

• Validity-critical: assumptions, theorem statements, proof gaps, estimator definition, simulation design.

These must be fixed in the manuscript and cross-referenced in the response.

• Applied-value-critical: application too decorative, weak comparison, missing practical diagnostic. Add

only the smallest table or paragraph that proves use value.

• Compression-risk: requests for extra cases, literature, or robustness that would break the printed-paper

discipline. Move noncritical material to supplement or explain why it is outside scope.

• Replication-risk: code, seeds, data access, or package layout. Fix in the archive and cite the file path.

The response letter should show that the leading case is now stronger, not just longer.

Response evidence rule

For every major comment, attach exactly one evidence object: theorem change, proof fix, simulation result,

application table, compression decision, or replication-file update. If a response has no evidence object,

it is probably only reassurance and should be strengthened before resubmission.

EctJ pushback patterns and venue-specific fixes

| Referee pushback | What it signals at EctJ | Fix that closes it |

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

| "Asymptotic results carry no finite-sample evidence" | Theory-simulation contract broken | Add the one coverage or size panel that pairs with the contested theorem, summarized within the main-text page norm |

| "Simulation DGPs are detached from the empirical illustration" | Applied-value claim looks decorative | Re-anchor one DGP to parameters estimated from the application data and say so in the design preamble |

| "The leading case is too special to matter" | Scope guardrail read as a defect | Show the leading case covers the application class; add a remark stating what an extension would require |

| "Why is this proof only in the online appendix?" | Proof-placement conformance risk | Move the derivation into the printed appendix and re-verify the 20-page budget |

| "Code did not reproduce Table 3" | Replication credibility, decisive after conditional acceptance | Rerun the package, fix seeds or versions, cite the exact script in the response |

Worked response fragment

Illustrative numbers: a referee writes that the proposed test's size is untrustworthy with few

clusters. A strong EctJ response does four things in four sentences: concede the gap ("the

original design only simulated 30 or more clusters"), report new evidence ("at 8 clusters the test

rejects 5.6% at nominal 5%, versus 12.9% for the incumbent; new Table 2, rows 1-2"), tie it to the

theorem ("consistent with Proposition 2's symmetric leading case"), and protect the page budget

("the full grid moved to Supplement S3"). Evidence, theorem, location — nothing else.

Resubmission clock triage

• Map each validity-critical fix to the clock first: a new proof usually fits the normal

one-month window, while a new simulation arm or application re-estimation often needs the

longer window — ask the editorial office early rather than overrunning silently.

• Re-verify conformance after revising: added material at this venue can push the printed paper

past the page norm and convert a scientific R&R into a format failure.

• If the decision letter touches the replication package, treat the rerun as part of the

response, not as post-acceptance housekeeping.

Output format

[Decision] R&R / conditional acceptance / reject-resubmit / other
[Revision thesis] <one sentence>
[Major issues] <assumptions/proofs/simulations/application/replication>
[Response draft] <point-by-point structure>
[Compression guardrail] <what must not grow>