Revision & Rebuttal (gec-revision-and-rebuttal)

A GEC major/minor revision is a real opportunity, but the manuscript usually faces reviewers from different disciplines who may pull in opposite directions (a natural-scientist wants more data; a governance scholar wants more theory). The response letter must move every reviewer toward yes while keeping the handling editor confident the revision is convergent and the human-dimensions contribution is intact.

When to trigger

• A revise decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
• Reviewers disagree with each other (often across disciplines) and you must reconcile
• A reviewer requests analyses or framing that would change the paper's claims
• Writing the cover note to the editor summarizing the revision

Strategy

1. Read the editor's letter as the rubric. The handling editor signals which points are decisive; solve those first. The editor adjudicates disagreements among reviewers.
2. One point-by-point response, every comment addressed. Quote each comment, then respond. Never skip one — silence reads as non-compliance.
3. Concede or rebut explicitly, with evidence. For each: did what was asked (say where, with the new text/table/figure number), or push back respectfully with a reason (framework, design, or evidence). A well-argued disagreement beats a capitulation that weakens the paper.
4. Reconcile cross-disciplinary conflicts openly. When a domain reviewer and a social-science reviewer want opposite things, say so, choose a principled path, and explain the tradeoff to the editor. Translate each reviewer's concern into terms the others can see.
5. Protect the contribution. Add robustness and clarification; resist changes that dilute the human-dimensions / policy contribution that earned the revision. Defend scope conditions rather than over-claiming.
6. Keep anonymity intact in the revised manuscript (still double-anonymized), and update the Data Availability Statement and archive so new tables/figures remain reproducible (see gec-submission).

Response-letter format

For each reviewer comment:

> [Quoted reviewer comment]

Response: [What we did / why we respectfully disagree].
Change: [Section/page/table-figure number where the revision appears].

Open with a short summary of the main changes to the editor; group by reviewer; end each entry with the location of the change so the editor can verify quickly.

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring or merging away a comment without a visible response
• Capitulating to a request that breaks the paper's logic just to please one reviewer
• Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
• "We thank the reviewer" with no actual change or argued reason
• Letting a domain reviewer's demand quietly erode the social-science contribution
• New exhibits drifting out of sync with the deposited archive

Output format

【Editor's decisive points】addressed first? [list]
【Coverage】every reviewer comment answered? [Y/N]
【Concede vs rebut】each tagged with evidence + change location
【Cross-disciplinary conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】human-dimensions contribution intact? [Y/N]
【Anonymity + data statement/archive updated】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit through Elsevier's online submission system

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, appeal, and submission notes