---
name: spq-rebuttal
description: Use when writing the response to a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) revise-and-resubmit. SPQ reviewers come from different sociological-social-psychology traditions and may pull in different directions, so the response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor while protecting the structure–individual contribution. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.
---

# R&R Rebuttal (spq-rebuttal)

An SPQ **R&R is an opportunity**, not a promise. Because reviewers are drawn from across the field's
traditions (symbolic interaction, SSP, group processes, identity, affect), they often weigh the paper by
different standards. The response letter must move *every* reviewer toward yes while keeping the editor
confident the revision is convergent — and without diluting the **structure–individual** contribution.

## When to trigger

- An R&R decision arrived and you are planning the revision + response letter
- Reviewers from different traditions disagree and you must reconcile their demands
- 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 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 number), or push back **respectfully with a reason** (theory, design, measurement, or
   evidence). A well-argued disagreement beats a hollow capitulation that weakens the paper.
4. **Translate across traditions.** When an experimentalist reviewer and an interpretive reviewer want
   different things, don't satisfy one by breaking the other's standard. Explain the tradeoff in the
   paper's own terms and choose a principled path.
5. **Protect the contribution.** Add robustness, measurement detail, or clarification; resist changes that
   sever the link between social structure/process and the individual that makes the paper an SPQ paper.
6. **Keep masking intact** in the revised manuscript (still blinded; separate title page). Note: the $25
   fee is **not** charged again on resubmission, and updating shared materials is encouraged but not
   required (see `spq-data-and-transparency`).

## 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
- Satisfying one tradition's reviewer by violating another's standard without explanation
- Defensive or dismissive tone toward reviewers
- Letting the revised manuscript lose its masking, or drifting away from the social-psychological contribution

## 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-tradition conflicts】reconciled and explained to editor? [Y/N]
【Contribution protected】structure–individual link intact? [Y/N]
【Masking intact in revision】[Y/N]
【Next】resubmit via SageTrack
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — masked-review, decision pattern, and resubmission/fee-waiver notes