Post-Panel Rebuttal (ecopol-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• You have presented at an EP conference and have two discussants' written comments to address
• You are preparing the camera-ready version that will be published next to those comments
• The panel debate surfaced points that need a fix, a concession, or a counter-argument
• A coauthor is treating discussant comments like an anonymous referee report and missing the public, side-by-side nature
• You must decide, point by point, what to change vs. what to defend in the final text

EP rebuttal is unusual: your reply is published next to the critique

At EP there is no private response-to-referees letter. The two discussants' comments are published alongside your final paper, and a summary of the panel discussion may accompany it (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). So your "rebuttal" is mostly the revised paper itself: the reader will see the critique and your paper side by side and judge whether you answered it. This reshapes strategy:

1. You cannot bury a concession in a private letter. If a discussant is right, fix it in the paper or address it openly — the reader sees both documents.
2. Defending in the text, not in correspondence. Where you disagree, the paper must contain the argument/evidence that answers the point, because there is no separate venue to make your case.
3. Tone is collegial and on the record. Discussants are named; the exchange is part of the published scholarly conversation, not an adversarial referee fight.

Triage every discussant point

Point type	Response
Correct and fixable	fix in the paper; note the improvement where natural
Correct but unfixable (data/scope limit)	concede openly in the text; bound its impact on the conclusion
A genuine disagreement	add the argument/evidence to the paper that answers it; acknowledge the alternative view
A request beyond scope	address briefly; explain why it is a separate question
A policy-framing concern	sharpen the policy bottom line / units (ecopol-tables-figures, ecopol-writing-style)

For each of the two discussants, work through every substantive point with this triage; do not cherry-pick the easy ones.

Craft moves

• Map academic vs. policy comments separately. The academic discussant's points usually mean analysis changes (ecopol-identification, ecopol-robustness); the policy discussant's usually mean framing/magnitude/legibility changes.
• Strengthen the central magnitude if either discussant questioned its robustness — that is the most damaging unanswered critique given the side-by-side format.
• Address the top points in the main text, not only the appendix — the reader comparing the documents looks at the paper, not the footnotes.
• Be honest about what you did not change and why — an unanswered, visible critique is worse than a frank concession.
• Keep the policy conclusion coherent after revisions: if a fix moves the number, update the recommendation rather than leaving a stale headline.

Checklist

• Every substantive point from both discussants triaged (fix / concede / defend / scope)
• Corrections incorporated into the paper, not just promised
• Genuine disagreements answered with argument/evidence in the paper
• Central magnitude re-defended if its robustness was questioned
• Top points addressed in the main text, given the side-by-side publication
• Concessions stated openly and their impact on the conclusion bounded
• Policy bottom line still coherent after all revisions
• Tone collegial and on the record (discussants are named)

Anti-patterns

• Treating discussant comments like a private referee report you can answer in a hidden letter
• Cherry-picking the easy points and silently ignoring a hard one the reader will see next to your paper
• Defending a number a discussant credibly challenged without strengthening the robustness
• Conceding a point in correspondence but leaving the paper unchanged
• Leaving a stale policy recommendation after a revision moved the underlying estimate

Output format

【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-rebuttal
【Format reality】discussant comments published alongside the paper
【Discussant 1 (academic)】points → fix/concede/defend
【Discussant 2 (policy)】points → fix/concede/defend
【Central magnitude】re-defended if challenged? Y/N
【Open concessions】stated in text + impact bounded? Y/N
【Policy bottom line】still coherent post-revision? Y/N
【Next step】finalize camera-ready → ecopol-submission (Stage 3)