jpsp-rebuttal

Rebuttal & Response Letter (jpsp-rebuttal)

A JPSP decision comes from one section's editor synthesizing masked reviewers. The section's

framing matters: in IRGP terms, the editor has judged your central limitations (must-fix for

interpretability) versus peripheral ones, and whether central issues are fixable with existing

vs. new data. Your response letter must show you understood that distinction and addressed the

central limitations first.

When to trigger

• An R&R or accept-with-revision decision arrives
• Planning the revision and the point-by-point response
• A reviewer asks for a new study, new analyses, or an updated internal meta-analysis
• Reconciling conflicting reviewer requests under the editor's framing

Response strategy

1. Lead with the editor's synthesis. The editor's letter tells you which concerns are decisive.

Address central limitations first and unmistakably.

1. Point-by-point, verbatim. Quote each reviewer comment, then respond; show manuscript changes

with page/line references and quoted new text.

1. Existing vs. new data. If a central limitation is addressable with existing studies/data

(re-analysis, a study currently in the supplement, an added robustness check or updated internal

meta-analysis), do that. If it truly needs new studies, recognize that a rejected paper

resubmitted with new data is treated as a new submission (per IRGP) — decide accordingly.

1. Disagree respectfully, with evidence. You may push back on a request that would weaken the

paper — explain why, cite evidence, and offer an alternative (e.g., a supplementary analysis).

1. Reconcile conflicts. When reviewers disagree, surface it and let the editor's framing arbitrate;

do not silently satisfy one reviewer and ignore another.

1. Keep transparency current. Update preregistration/exploratory labeling, JARS reporting, and the

trusted-repository deposit to reflect new analyses or studies (jpsp-open-science-and-transparency).

1. Respect the caps on the revision. Added theory/analysis must still fit the section's

intro+discussion word cap and study limit — push detail to exhibits and the supplement.

Anti-patterns

• A defensive letter that argues away central limitations instead of fixing them
• Answering peripheral nitpicks thoroughly while sidestepping the decisive concern
• Adding studies that blow the section's study cap into the main text (use the supplement)
• Silently changing results without updating the internal meta-analysis or transparency statements
• Claiming you "addressed" a comment without pointing to the actual change

Triage map: which concern needs which response

In IRGP terms the editor has already sorted concerns into central vs. peripheral and existing-data vs. new-data. Mirror that sort in your reply so the editor sees you understood the decision.

| Reviewer concern | Likely tier | Response that fits JPSP |

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

| "Key study is underpowered" | central, existing data | Re-analyze with smallest-effect framing; pool into the internal meta-analysis; report the updated CI |

| "Effect could be a confound" | central, existing or new | A focused alternative-explanation analysis; add one targeted study only if no existing data isolates it |

| "Theory not advanced beyond demonstration" | central, conceptual | Sharpen the contribution and diagnostic hypotheses; a new study rarely fixes a thin idea |

| "Add a fourth manipulation check" | peripheral | Do it briefly or justify; do not let it crowd out the central fix |

A central limitation needing new studies means a rejected paper resubmitted later is treated as a new submission (IRGP guidance; confirm per section).

Worked micro-example: a two-reviewer R&R reply

Illustrative — invented decision to show the structure, not a real letter.

Editor's synthesis: "innovative idea, but S2's null is a central concern." R1 wants a new study; R2 calls the mediation over-claimed.

• Open with the central point. "We agree S2's interpretability was the decisive issue."
• Existing-data fix first. Pooling S1–S3 gives random-effects d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.18, 0.45] (illustrative); S2's wide CI [−0.02, 0.44] reflected lower power, now stated at p. 14.
• Disagree respectfully. On R2's point we soften causal language to "consistent with" and add a sensitivity analysis, not a new mediation study the design cannot support.
• Surface the conflict. R1 asked for a study R2 did not; we offer the pooled re-analysis and defer.

Output format

【Decision】accept-with-revision / R&R (section: ASC/IRGP/PPID)
【Editor's central concerns】listed first
【Per concern】central vs peripheral · existing-data fix vs new study · what changed (page/line)
【Internal meta-analysis】updated if results changed? [Y/N]
【Transparency】prereg/JARS/repository updated? [Y/N]
【Caps respected】revision still within word + study limits? [Y/N]
【Tone】point-by-point, evidence-based, conflicts surfaced for the editor

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — re-analysis, metafor (updated meta-analysis), repository tools
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — IRGP decision categories and central/peripheral framing