Lecture 7.2: Responding to Reviewers

AREC 570 / ECON 530 · Unit 7

Lauren Chenarides

Before class

  • Boonpramote, Writing for Economics Journals: Elements of Publication Success (Boonpramote 2000).
  • Choi, “Rejection and Revision” (Choi n.d.).
  • Fryer, “A Response to Steven Durlauf and James Heckman” (Fryer 2020).

Readings and course handouts are available on Canvas.

Read the decision before drafting a response

  • What did the editor decide?
  • Which concerns are central?
  • What revision is invited or required?
  • What deadline and submission instructions apply?

A revision invitation is an opportunity, not a guarantee of acceptance.

What rejection can teach us

Possible problems include:

  • Unclear contribution.
  • A gap between evidence and claims.
  • Weak organization or exposition.
  • Poor fit with the journal.
  • A substantive methodological flaw.

Separate presentation problems from problems requiring new analysis.

Discussion: Boonpramote

The reading approaches publication from editors’ and referees’ perspectives.

  • What makes a contribution recognizable?
  • How can weak communication obscure useful research?
  • Which concerns can be addressed through writing?
  • Which require changing the research itself?

Find an example in the reading for each kind of revision.

Choi: persist and listen

  • Read the criticism carefully.
  • Look for useful information even in an unwelcome report.
  • Treat misunderstanding as a reason to improve clarity.
  • Respond to substance without attacking the reviewer.

Source: Choi (n.d.).

Build a revision plan

Comment Planned response Manuscript change Status
Outcome definition unclear Define units and timing Data section Pending
Comparison group questionable Investigate exposure Analysis and limitations Pending
Conclusion too broad Narrow claim Abstract and conclusion Pending

Illustrative plan. Assign responsibility and resolve dependencies.

Answer each comment directly

For every substantive comment:

  1. State the concern.
  2. Explain your response.
  3. Describe the change or provide a reasoned disagreement.
  4. Identify where the manuscript changed.
  5. State any remaining limitation.

Make the reviewer able to verify your answer.

When you agree

We agree that the outcome definition was ambiguous. We now specify the reference period and units in the Data section and use the same definition in Table 1.

Why is this more useful than “Fixed” or “Thank you”?

Hypothetical response example.

When you disagree

  • Restate the concern fairly.
  • Explain why the requested change would not resolve it or would change the question.
  • Supply evidence or reasoning.
  • Clarify the manuscript where misunderstanding is plausible.
  • Acknowledge what remains unresolved.

Disagreement should be specific and verifiable.

Discussion: Choi’s recommendations

  • Which recommendations improve the substance of a revision?
  • Which concern tone and persistence?
  • Which advice is context-dependent?
  • How would you respond if two reviewers made incompatible requests?

Distinguish general advice from a particular editor’s instructions.

Fryer: map the response

The response organizes the debate around:

  • What the analysis claims about racial differences and discrimination.
  • Selection into police-civilian interactions.
  • The reliability of police narratives.

Identify where the author agrees, disagrees, or clarifies the scope of a claim.

Source: Fryer (2020).

Discussion: evaluate the response

Choose one of those three issues.

  • What criticism is being answered?
  • What evidence or reasoning is offered?
  • Does the response change the analysis, narrow the claim, or defend the original approach?
  • What question would you still want answered?

Read this as an exercise in evaluating argument, not as evidence that the underlying debate is settled.

Communicate other substantive changes

Tell the editor and reviewers about important changes beyond their requests:

  • New data.
  • A different specification.
  • Additional checks.
  • Revised interpretation.

Explain why the change was made and how it affects the conclusions.

Should review correspondence be public?

The source deck raises transparency in peer review.

Discuss possible effects on:

  • Accountability and learning.
  • Candor.
  • Confidentiality.
  • Willingness to review.

What publication policy would balance these concerns?

Workshop: write a response

Use the major comment from Lecture 7.1.

Produce:

  1. A response paragraph.
  2. A proposed manuscript revision.
  3. A precise location for the change.
  4. An explanation of what remains uncertain.

Exchange with your reviewer. Can they verify that the concern was addressed?

Before you leave

Identify your first revision task and the evidence that would show it is complete.

References

Boonpramote, Thitisak. 2000. Writing for Economics Journals: Elements of Publication Success. Final report for LICM598: Academic Publishing Seminar. Division of Economics; Business, Colorado School of Mines.
Choi, E. Kwan. n.d. Rejection and Revision. How to Publish in Top Journals. http://www.roie.org/how.htm.
Fryer, Jr., Roland G. 2020. “A Response to Steven Durlauf and James Heckman.” Journal of Political Economy 128 (10): 4003–8. https://doi.org/10.1086/710977.

Course navigation