---

name: aejmac-rebuttal description: Use when an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) decision letter has arrived (R&R or reject-with-comments) and you need a response-letter strategy and revision plan. Plans the rebuttal and revision; it does not run new identification, model, or robustness work itself (route to those skills).

Rebuttal & Response Letter (aejmac-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• An R&R from the editor/coeditor and referees has arrived
• A reject-with-comments where a re-submission (here or elsewhere) is being weighed
• Referee reports conflict with each other and you must reconcile them
• You need to convert a pile of macro objections into a tractable revision plan

The AEJ: Macro rebuttal posture

AEJ: Macro review is single-blind and editor/coeditor-managed; the coeditor's letter is the binding instruction set — when a referee and the coeditor disagree, follow the coeditor. The response must show that the broad-interest macro contribution survived the scrutiny and that the identified-empirical and/or quantitative-model objections are answered with new exhibits, not new prose alone. Macro referees reward a response that re-runs the decisive check and reports the (possibly changed) number honestly.

Building the response

Step 1 — Triage every comment

• Build a table: comment → required action → owning skill → main-text vs. appendix → status.
• Tag each as (a) do and show, (b) do and report even if it weakens the result, or (c) reasoned pushback. Most should be (a)/(b); reserve (c) for the few you can win on the merits.

Step 2 — Map comments to the macro skills

• Identification objections → aejmac-identification (re-do the SVAR/LP/narrative defense).
• "Artifact of the sample/spec" → aejmac-robustness (sample splits, method cross-check).
• Calibration / counterfactual / Lucas-critique → aejmac-theory-model.
• "Not broad enough" / contribution unclear → aejmac-literature-positioning / aejmac-writing-style.
• Reproducibility → aejmac-replication-package.

Step 3 — Write the letter

• Open with a short summary of the main changes and the headline (state if the number moved).
• One comment, one response block: restate the comment, state what you did, point to the exact new table/figure/section, quote the changed text.
• Be honest about movement: if a robustness check changed the estimate, report the new value and explain why the conclusion still holds (or how it is now appropriately qualified).
• Push back sparingly and with evidence, never with attitude; concede gracefully where the referee is right.

Step 4 — Reconcile conflicts

• When referees conflict, say so explicitly, explain your choice, and tie it to the coeditor's guidance.

Checklist

• [ ] Every comment in a triage table with action, owning skill, location, status
• [ ] The coeditor's letter treated as binding; conflicts reconciled to it
• [ ] Each empirical/model objection answered with a new exhibit, not prose alone
• [ ] Honest reporting where a check moved the headline number
• [ ] Response letter is point-by-point, with exact pointers and quoted changed text
• [ ] Pushback is rare, evidenced, and courteous
• [ ] Reproducibility comments resolved against the openICPSR package

Anti-patterns

• Answering an identification or robustness objection with words instead of a re-run and a new exhibit
• Hiding that a robustness check changed the estimate
• Treating a referee as adversary; defensiveness in tone
• Ignoring the coeditor's priorities to satisfy a referee's tangent
• A response letter that does not point to exact tables/sections
• Promising changes in the letter that are not actually in the revised manuscript

Worked vignette: the number moved (illustrative)

A referee says the monetary-policy output response is a pre-Volcker artifact. You re-estimate post-1984 (aejmac-robustness) and the peak response falls from -0.8% to -0.6% (90% bands overlapping). The strong response block: "We agree the early sample could drive the result. Re-estimating on 1984–2019 (new Table A4, Figure A3), the peak output response is -0.6% (90% band [-1.0, -0.2]), within the band of the full-sample estimate; the qualitative conclusion is unchanged and the magnitude is now reported for the modern monetary regime. We have revised the abstract and Section 4 accordingly." Honest, exhibit-backed, conclusion preserved and appropriately scoped.

Output format

【Decision type】R&R / reject-with-comments
【Triage table built】comment → action → owning skill → location → status? [Y/N]
【Coeditor letter treated as binding】conflicts reconciled to it? [Y/N]
【New exhibits for empirical/model objections】listed? [Y/N]
【Honest number movement reported】? [Y/N / NA]
【Letter style】point-by-point with exact pointers? [Y/N]
【Next step】revise manuscript; re-run aejmac-submission preflight before resubmitting