Trigger timing
- Receive 《经济研究》 R&R notification
- Already have 1–3 reviewer reports and editorial-board comments
- Ready to begin revising the main text + response letter
Sequencing principle
Revise the main text first, then write the response letter. The response letter is a "guide map" and must be based on the already-revised version of the main text.
Reversing the order leads to:
- The response letter promises revisions that the main text does not actually make
- During main-text revision it is discovered that the promises cannot be fulfilled
- Inconsistencies across multiple drafts
Response letter structure
Overall structure
尊敬的主编、编委、各位审稿专家：
非常感谢编辑部和各位审稿专家在百忙之中对本文的审阅和宝贵意见。
我们已根据各位意见对论文进行了系统修订。下面我们逐条回复各位的意见。
为便于核对，我们在回复中标注了修订对应的正文位置（如"详见正文 P.X 第 Y 段"）。
致主编 / 编委的回复（如有编委意见）
审稿人 1 的回复
审稿人 2 的回复
审稿人 3 的回复（如有）
再次感谢各位的宝贵意见。
作者
20XX 年 XX 月 XX 日
Structure of a single response
意见 X：[原文照抄审稿意见]
回复：感谢审稿专家的宝贵意见。我们已[做了什么具体修改]，理由如下：
（1）从理论角度，……
（2）从实证角度，……
（3）从写作角度，……
具体修改详见正文第 X 页第 Y 段（修订标记已用[蓝色字体 / 修订模式]标出）。
Three response modes
A. Fully accept
- Directly state acceptance + describe the revision + indicate the location
- Do not make excuses
B. Partially accept
- First affirm the reviewer's reasonableness
- Explain the scope of partial acceptance
- Explain the reasons for the part not accepted (give evidence, do not quibble）
C. Do not accept (use cautiously)
- First fully affirm the reviewer's consideration
- Give rigorous counterargument (at least 3 paragraphs)
- If necessary, add new robustness checks / supplementary analyses as supporting evidence
- At most 1–2 items may be non-accepted
Economic Research Journal R&R special notes
- If the editorial-board comment concernstheoretical positioning, it must be addressed with emphasis—this is what 《经济研究》 values most
- If the reviewer requests "supplementary robustness of the identification strategy," add 2–3 additional robustness tables at the end of the paper
- If the reviewer requests "supplementary mechanisms" → prioritize adding a mechanism subsection in the main text rather than in the appendix
Whether new results go in the main text or the appendix
For analyses that reviewers require to be added, decide placement by "whether it changes the paper's skeleton":
- Goes in the main text: reconstructions touching on theoretical positioning, new mechanism subsections, estimations replacing the main identification strategy—these are what the editorial board and second-round reviewers must see; hiding them in the appendix will be seen as perfunctory.
- Goes in the supplementary tables at the end / appendix: additional robustness checks in the same direction, alternative measures, dropping subsamples—a one-sentence summary in the main text + "see Appendix Table X" is sufficient, avoiding main-text bloat that dilutes the main line.
- Only goes in the response letter: counterfactual calculations made to respond to doubts, literature review discussed with reviewers—if not directly related to the paper's claims, writing them in the response letter is more appropriate than stuffing them into the main text.
When unsure, ask one question: **Can a second-round reviewer independently understand the motivation for this revision by reading only the revised main text?** If not, upgrade it into the main text.
Mini comparison of response wording
❌ Before rewriting: "The reviewer's concern is unnecessary; our instrumental variable obviously satisfies exclusion."
✅ After rewriting: "The reviewer's concern about exclusion is very important. We have added evidence from two aspects: first, after controlling for X, which may constitute a direct channel, the coefficient is basically unchanged (Appendix Table 3); second, the placebo test shows that the instrumental variable has no explanatory power for Y′, which is unaffected by the policy. We have also added a discussion in Section 4.2 of the main text on the applicable boundary of the exclusion restriction assumption."
Principles:Rebuttals rely on new evidence, not adjectives; the tone should be humble but the position clear, avoiding provocative wording such as "obviously" or "superfluous".
Comment-Revision Cross-Reference Table (attached at the beginning of the response letter)
For multi-round, multi-reviewer R&R, it is recommended to place an overview table at the beginning of the response letter; this makes verification more efficient for the editorial office and creates a good impression:
| No. | Source | Comment Topic | Handling | Location in Main Text |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Editorial Board | Theoretical positioning | Fully accepted, rewrote Section 2.1 | P.5–7 |
| 2 | Reviewer 1 | Parallel trends | Fully accepted, added event study figure | Figure 2 |
| 3 | Reviewer 2 | Replace the dependent variable | Partially accepted, Appendix Table 4 + explanation in the main text | P.18 |
Must-Check List
- Every review comment has a corresponding response (none may be omitted)
- Every response indicates the revision location in the main text
- The response letter begins with an acknowledgment paragraph
- Comments that are not accepted have sufficient argumentation + corroborating evidence
- Revisions in the main text are marked (blue font / Track Changes)
- The revised main text has been read through to ensure there are no contradictions
- Comments on theoretical positioning have been addressed first
Anti-Patterns
- "Thank you for the reviewer's comment; we have revised it."—a one-line response
- The response letter is longer than the main text—likely padding for word count
- Three reviewers' comments conflict, yet the response letter accepts them all—the main text will be self-contradictory
- Writing responses to comments that are not accepted in a very defensive way
- Ignoring the editorial board's comments and responding only to anonymous reviewers
Companion Materials and Examples
For a complete example response letter (3 reviews / multiple comments / three response modes), see resources/worked-examples/10-response-letter.md。
Output Format
【审稿人数】X 人
【意见总数】X 条
【完全接受】X 条
【部分接受】X 条
【不接受】X 条
【回复信字数】X
【正文修订段落数】X
【编委意见回应】完整 / 待补
【下一步】上传至投稿系统 → 等待二轮审稿