isr-rebuttal

R&R Rebuttal (isr-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You received an ISR major-revision (R&R) and must plan the revision and response letter
• Reviewers and the SE pull in different directions and you need a priority order
• A reviewer challenged your contribution, identification, proof, or evaluation
• You need to revise the ~500-word contribution statement for the resubmission

Revise first, then write the response

Do the manuscript work before drafting the letter. ISR review is developmental and SE-led, so the response is a conversation with the Senior Editor, organized around their synthesis.

Prioritize by who decides

1. Senior Editor's binding concerns first. The SE makes the final decision; their letter defines what must change. Address these completely and visibly, even when individual reviewers disagree among themselves — and when they do, let the SE's framing arbitrate.
2. Contribution/fit challenges next. If the SE or a reviewer questioned the contribution to IS or the intradisciplinary framing, treat it as primary: strengthen the mechanism/insight, sharpen the silo-bridging claim, and update the ~500-word contribution statement to match the revised paper.
3. Genre-specific execution asks. Map each reviewer point to its genre and respond in kind:

• Analytical: relax/justify a contested assumption, add an extension, complete a proof — place full derivations in the electronic companion.
• Behavioral: add an identification check, a measurement/CMB remedy, a replication or robustness sample.
• Design science: strengthen the evaluation against baselines and design objectives.
• Multimethod: show explicitly how the methods integrate (per ISR 36(2)).

Write a point-by-point response

• Reproduce each comment, then give your response and the exact change (section, page, table).
• Be respectful and substantive; where you disagree, argue with evidence rather than deflecting.
• Use the electronic companion for new proofs, full new measurement items, and extensive additional analyses so the main text stays within the 32-page text / 38-page total cap.
• Keep the revised manuscript double-anonymized; do not reveal identity in response-to-reviewer prose.

Revision control ledger

Before drafting prose, build a compact ledger with one row per decisive issue:

| Issue source | Required manuscript edit | Evidence added | Response location |

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

| Senior Editor synthesis | Section-level rewrite, model extension, validity check, or evaluation change | New table, proof, construct-validity evidence, benchmark, or field evidence | Page/section/table plus response paragraph |

Use the ledger to catch fake progress. If an issue has only a response paragraph and no manuscript edit, it is still unresolved unless the correct answer is a reasoned non-change. If two reviewers ask for incompatible changes, write a short arbitration note for the SE: state the tradeoff, the chosen path, and why it best preserves the ISR contribution. Do not accept mutually inconsistent requests in different parts of the paper.

Acceptance bar for the revision

The revised paper should make the SE's next decision easy:

• The contribution statement, introduction, and discussion now tell the same ISR-specific story.
• New analyses or proofs answer the inferential threat, not just add volume.
• The electronic companion is navigable: proofs, measures, robustness, and extra evaluations are labeled to match the response letter.
• Any remaining limitation is acknowledged as a boundary condition, with no defensive language.

Checklist

• [ ] Manuscript revised before the letter is written
• [ ] SE's binding concerns addressed completely and first
• [ ] Contribution/fit challenges resolved; ~500-word statement updated
• [ ] Genre-specific asks answered (assumptions/proofs, identification/validity, evaluation)
• [ ] Multimethod-integration concerns addressed if raised
• [ ] New proofs/items/robustness routed to the electronic companion; page cap respected
• [ ] Revision ledger has no response-only fixes for decisive issues
• [ ] Point-by-point letter cites exact locations of each change; anonymization preserved

Anti-patterns

• Drafting the letter before revising the manuscript.
• Treating reviewers as equal voices and missing the SE's priorities.
• Cosmetic responses that promise change without editing the paper.
• Letting the body exceed the page cap instead of using the electronic companion.
• Inconsistent appeasement: accepting conflicting reviewer requests without an SE-facing rationale.

Output format

【SE binding concerns】addressed: [...]
【Contribution/fit】resolved; statement updated? [...]
【Genre asks】analytical/behavioral/DSR responses: [...]
【Electronic companion】new material routed; page cap ok? [...]
【Response letter】point-by-point with exact locations? [...]
【Anonymization】preserved? [...]
【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne → isr-review-process