geb-rebuttal

R&R Rebuttal (geb-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• A GEB revision decision has arrived
• Referees question novelty, proof correctness, equilibrium selection, experiment design, or fit
• You need a response letter that respects the Editor-in-Charge process

Triage categories

1. Theory correctness: missing proof step, equilibrium existence/uniqueness,

refinement, comparative statics, boundary case, or counterexample.

1. Novelty and positioning: the paper may be a corollary, special case, or

incremental extension of known game-theory results.

1. Experimental / numerical evidence: underpowered experiment, unclear

treatment, robustness, code, or simulation design.

1. Exposition: notation, game form, timing, payoff matrix, assumptions, or

abstract length.

1. Fit: contribution to game theory is not visible enough.

Response strategy

• Start with the editor's synthesis, then handle referee comments in order.
• For proof comments, add the missing lemma/proof or narrow the theorem.
• For novelty comments, compare theorem-by-theorem with the closest prior result.
• For experimental comments, add power, robustness, treatment checks, or clearer

implementation details.

• Keep the contribution framed as advancing game theory or its applications, not

merely adding a new empirical setting.

Response paragraph pattern

We thank the referee for identifying this issue. We now revise [theorem/model/
experiment] by [change]. The new material appears in [section/table/appendix].
It addresses the concern because [logic tied to equilibrium/proof/design].

Who reads the GEB response

• The Editor in Charge — one of the seven Editors, publicly known to you,

with final decision authority — decides whether the revision returns to

referees or is settled directly. Open the letter with a half-page summary

written for that person: which objections were resolved, and how the main

theorem or finding changed (or did not).

• The Advisory Editor who recommended the decision remains anonymous, as do

referees; never guess identities or address evaluators by name.

• Under GEB's single-anonymized model, a referee may be an author of the

nearest prior result. Meet novelty objections with theorem-level precision,

not dismissal — that reader likely knows the prior proof better than you do.

• If a revision weakens or renames a theorem, flag it prominently; an Editor

in Charge who finds a silently narrowed result late in the letter stops

trusting the rest of it.

Worked micro-example: a novelty objection

Referee: "Proposition 2 appears to be a special case of [prior theorem]."

• Weak reply: "Our setting differs, so the results are not comparable." —

asserts without demonstrating, and reads as evasion to a specialist.

• Strong reply: "Proposition 2 is not implied by [prior theorem]: their

argument uses quasi-concavity of payoffs (their Assumption A2), which our

class violates (new Example 3). Remark 4 now states exactly which step of

their proof fails in our environment, and Corollary 1 cites their result

where the two genuinely overlap." — concedes the true overlap, isolates the

delta, and gives manuscript locations for both.

Revision-package mechanics (Editorial Manager)

• [ ] Point-by-point response letter + a marked-changes manuscript alongside

clean editable Word or LaTeX source (required at every round)

• [ ] Keep theorem/section numbering stable where possible; if numbering moved,

give an old-to-new map at the top of the letter

• [ ] New simulations or sessions added in revision: update seeds, scripts, and

the voluntary data statement (see geb-replication-and-data-policy)

• [ ] Abstract still within the 250-word cap after any reframing
• [ ] Generative-AI declaration still accurate if AI tools touched the revision

Response pass for Games and Economic Behavior

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.

• Do the pass: Separate editor-order changes from referee-specific changes; answer each major objection with manuscript edits plus a short evidence citation, not tone.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

[Decision] major revision / minor revision
[Editor priority] ...
[Theory changes] ...
[Experiment/numerics changes] ...
[Positioning changes] ...
[Next step] revise manuscript + response letter