---
name: isr-rebuttal
description: Use when planning and drafting the response to an Information Systems Research (ISR) revise-and-resubmit — prioritizing the Senior Editor's binding concerns, addressing genre-specific reviewer asks (assumptions/proofs, identification/validity, evaluation), updating the contribution statement, and using the electronic companion. Drafts the revision and response; it runs after isr-review-process.
---

# R&R Rebuttal (isr-rebuttal)

## When to trigger

- You received an ISR major-revision (R&R) and must plan the revision and response letter
- Reviewers and the SE pull in different directions and you need a priority order
- A reviewer challenged your contribution, identification, proof, or evaluation
- You need to revise the ~500-word contribution statement for the resubmission

## Revise first, then write the response

Do the manuscript work before drafting the letter. ISR review is developmental and SE-led, so the response is a **conversation with the Senior Editor**, organized around their synthesis.

## Prioritize by who decides

1. **Senior Editor's binding concerns first.** The SE makes the final decision; their letter defines what *must* change. Address these completely and visibly, even when individual reviewers disagree among themselves — and when they do, let the SE's framing arbitrate.
2. **Contribution/fit challenges next.** If the SE or a reviewer questioned the **contribution to IS** or the intradisciplinary framing, treat it as primary: strengthen the mechanism/insight, sharpen the silo-bridging claim, and **update the ~500-word contribution statement** to match the revised paper.
3. **Genre-specific execution asks.** Map each reviewer point to its genre and respond in kind:
   - **Analytical:** relax/justify a contested assumption, add an extension, complete a proof — place full derivations in the **electronic companion**.
   - **Behavioral:** add an identification check, a measurement/CMB remedy, a replication or robustness sample.
   - **Design science:** strengthen the evaluation against baselines and design objectives.
   - **Multimethod:** show explicitly how the methods integrate (per ISR 36(2)).

## Write a point-by-point response

- Reproduce each comment, then give your response and the **exact change** (section, page, table).
- Be respectful and substantive; where you disagree, argue with evidence rather than deflecting.
- Use the **electronic companion** for new proofs, full new measurement items, and extensive additional analyses so the main text stays within the **32-page text / 38-page total** cap.
- Keep the revised manuscript **double-anonymized**; do not reveal identity in response-to-reviewer prose.

## Checklist

- [ ] Manuscript revised before the letter is written
- [ ] SE's binding concerns addressed completely and first
- [ ] Contribution/fit challenges resolved; ~500-word statement updated
- [ ] Genre-specific asks answered (assumptions/proofs, identification/validity, evaluation)
- [ ] Multimethod-integration concerns addressed if raised
- [ ] New proofs/items/robustness routed to the electronic companion; page cap respected
- [ ] Point-by-point letter cites exact locations of each change; anonymization preserved

## Anti-patterns

- **Drafting the letter before revising** the manuscript.
- **Treating reviewers as equal voices** and missing the SE's priorities.
- **Cosmetic responses** that promise change without editing the paper.
- **Letting the body exceed the page cap** instead of using the electronic companion.

## Output format

```
【SE binding concerns】addressed: [...]
【Contribution/fit】resolved; statement updated? [...]
【Genre asks】analytical/behavioral/DSR responses: [...]
【Electronic companion】new material routed; page cap ok? [...]
【Response letter】point-by-point with exact locations? [...]
【Anonymization】preserved? [...]
【Next step】resubmit via ScholarOne → isr-review-process
```