agentsclimarketplace

Jm rebuttal

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Journal-of-Marketing-Skills/skills/jm-rebuttal

Use when planning a revision and drafting the point-by-point response letter for a Journal of Marketing (JM) R&R — prioritizing the Coeditor's decisive concerns, strengthening substantive novelty and managerial relevance, and keeping the double-anonymized rules. Plans and drafts the response; it does not interpret the original decision (jm-review-process).From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jm-rebuttal

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

4.7 KB, 941 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

R&R Revision & Response (jm-rebuttal)

When to trigger

  • You received a JM major/minor revision and need a plan and a response letter
  • A reviewer challenged the substantive contribution, relevance, or identification
  • You must revise before writing the response (do not draft the letter on an unrevised paper)
  • A subsequent round arrived and you need to show movement since the last revision

Sequence: revise first, then respond

JM R&Rs are developmental and often multi-round. Revise the manuscript first; the response letter documents changes that already exist. Lead the work with the Coeditor's decisive concerns — at JM these almost always include the two gatekeeping bars: substantive novelty (compelling new insight, not a new-context replication) and managerial/policy/societal relevance. A revision that polishes peripheral points but leaves a gatekeeping concern unaddressed will not advance.

Build the response letter

  • Open with a brief summary of the most important changes and how the paper is stronger on JM's substantive-and-relevance bar.
  • Point-by-point: restate each comment, then state the change, with page/line or section pointers to the revised manuscript (remember: no line numbers in the file — cite sections/pages or quote the revised text).
  • Quote new text inline so the editor sees the change without hunting.
  • Stay anonymized: no author-revealing language anywhere in the letter or revised files; keep any preregistration links anonymized.
  • Be candid on disagreements: where you decline a suggestion, explain respectfully with evidence; do not silently ignore a comment.

Address JM-specific concerns head-on

  • "Incremental / new-context" → strengthen and foreground the new mechanism, reversal, boundary condition, or decisive magnitude; revise the contribution sentences (see jm-contribution-framing).
  • "So what for practice?" → add or sharpen the managerial/policy/societal implications, quantified in real units (lift, CLV, WTP, welfare).
  • "Identification is weak" → add the design-appropriate fix (better instrument, parallel-trends evidence, additional experiment, robustness/placebo tests) per jm-data-analysis.
  • "Significance without magnitude" → ensure exact p-values, SEs, and effect sizes are reported throughout, in managerial units where possible.
  • Scope challenge (too methods-y / too general-management) → re-center the paper on the substantive marketing question and its real-world stakes.

Prepare transparency deliverables

If the revision is heading toward conditional acceptance, line up the JM Dataverse replication packet (data + analysis scripts, or qualitative materials), confirm the Data Availability Statement, and prepare preregistration links and the attestation. Doing this during the R&R avoids a scramble at acceptance.

Checklist

  • Manuscript revised before the letter was drafted
  • Coeditor's decisive concerns addressed first
  • Substantive-novelty and managerial-relevance challenges answered explicitly
  • Point-by-point letter with section/page pointers and quoted new text
  • Exact p-values, SEs, effect sizes verified throughout after revision
  • Identification/robustness additions completed where requested
  • Anonymization preserved in letter and files (incl. prereg links)
  • Replication packet / Data Availability Statement prepared if nearing acceptance

Anti-patterns

  • Letter before revision — promising changes not yet made.
  • Cosmetic edits to a gatekeeping (novelty/relevance) concern.
  • Defensive non-answers that dodge a reviewer's point.
  • Reintroducing identity in the response or revised files.
  • Over-claiming new results beyond what the added analysis supports.

Output format

【Revision done first】yes/no
【Coeditor decisive concerns addressed】[...]
【Novelty + relevance answers】[...]
【Identification/robustness additions】[...]
【Exact-statistic check】p / SE / effect size verified post-revision?
【Letter】point-by-point with pointers + quoted text drafted?
【Anonymization】preserved (incl. prereg links)?
【Transparency】JM Dataverse + DAS readiness if nearing acceptance: [...]
【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne → jm-review-process for the next round

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.