joe-workflow
GitHubJournal of Econometrics 投稿工作流路由器。根据用户当前进度或痛点，智能推荐对应的 joe-* 子技能（如选题、文献定位、方法论证、写作、回复审稿等），引导完成从选题到修回的全流程。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill joe-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "joe-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which joe-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a Journal of Econometrics (JoE) manuscript from methodological topic selection through revision rebuttal. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
Journal of Econometrics Workflow Router (joe-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It tells you which joe- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Econometrics (JoE). Default assumption unless the user says otherwise: the target is JoE — an Elsevier journal (founded 1973) for substantive econometric methodology, covering identification, estimation, testing, decision, and prediction problems in economic research, plus applications of econometric techniques. The center of gravity is a new estimator, test, identification result, or asymptotic theory, defended with proofs and Monte Carlo evidence; purely empirical work without a methodological advance is typically out of scope.
Operational tells you are at JoE and not a sibling: current official pages split portal guidance (ScienceDirect/new-submission links to Editorial Manager; JoE Google Sites and the resubmission flow still reference Editorial Express), a USD $75 nonrefundable fee for new submissions and resubmissions over one year, a 250-word abstract, single-anonymized review by a minimum of two referees after editor screening, Elsevier source-file rules plus Editorial Express resubmission PDF norms, and three tracks: Regular, Annals, and Themed Issues. Co-Editors-in-Chief: Michael Jansson (UC Berkeley) and Aureo de Paula (UCL). Re-verify volatile specifics (portal routing, editors, open themed calls) on the official pages.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?"
- A draft needs its current bottleneck diagnosed
- Work is ping-ponging between theory, simulation, illustration, and writing
- A JoE decision letter arrived and revision mode is needed
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea feels incremental / "is this a real methodological contribution?" | joe-topic-selection |
| Contribution relative to the econometrics literature is fuzzy | joe-literature-positioning |
| Assumptions / regularity conditions / asymptotics not nailed down | joe-identification-strategy |
| Monte Carlo design or empirical illustration is thin | joe-data-analysis |
| The "why this matters to econometrics" framing is weak | joe-contribution-framing |
| Theorem/Monte-Carlo tables and figures are unclear | joe-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the result; proofs are hard to follow | joe-writing-style |
| Code/data archive and data-citation norms unclear | joe-replication-and-data-policy |
| Need to understand single-anonymized review / track choice | joe-review-process |
| Ready to submit; need live portal and file preflight | joe-submission |
| Received a revision request; need a response strategy | joe-rebuttal |
Default order
joe-topic-selection— confirm a genuine methodological gapjoe-literature-positioning— stake the contribution against the frontierjoe-identification-strategy— assumptions, theorems, asymptotics, proof planjoe-data-analysis— Monte Carlo design + empirical illustrationjoe-contribution-framing— articulate the general lesson for econometricsjoe-tables-figures— size/power tables and theory-illustrating figuresjoe-writing-style— make proofs legible; abstract + intro lastjoe-replication-and-data-policy— assemble code/data per Elsevier normsjoe-review-process— pick the track; anticipate refereesjoe-submission— live portal preflight (incl. fee/file proof)joe-rebuttal— after the revision request
joe-writing-styleis a late polish. Do not rewrite the intro before the theorems and Monte Carlo are settled — the claims will change.
Stage-gate audit
Before advancing down the default order, run this self-audit. Any NO answer names the skill to
invoke; do not proceed past an open gate — JoE referees read the theory first, and a gap at G2 or G3
sinks the paper regardless of how polished the later stages are.
JoE STAGE-GATE AUDIT (one line per gate; stop at the first NO)
G1 Contribution New estimator / test / identification result / asymptotic
theory named in one sentence? NO -> joe-topic-selection
G2 Frontier Nearest three methods papers cited and beaten on stated
dimensions (weaker assumptions, wider class, sharper rate)?
NO -> joe-literature-positioning
G3 Theory Every theorem has stated regularity conditions and a
complete proof or proof sketch? NO -> joe-identification-strategy
G4 Evidence Monte Carlo covers size AND power, with a DGP a referee
would call fair; empirical illustration runs?
NO -> joe-data-analysis
G5 Package Code/data archive reproduces every table; Elsevier data
norms met? NO -> joe-replication-and-data-policy
G6 Preflight 250-word abstract, single-anonymized files, USD $75 fee,
correct portal (Editorial Manager new / Editorial Express
resubmission), track chosen? NO -> joe-submission
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
joe-literature-positioning— referees judge the methodological novelty first - Do not polish exhibits while a key regularity condition is still unproven
- Do not let
joe-rebuttaldraft a response before the revised manuscript exists - Do not route a purely empirical paper here — without a methods advance it is out of scope
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:32
