jegeo-referee-strategy
GitHub针对JEG期刊双社区审稿特点，预判经济学家与地理学家的交叉异议。提供识别、空间机制及稳健性检查的防御策略，协助决定修改优先级与推荐审稿人，旨在通过桥接双方视角提升稿件接受率。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jegeo-referee-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jegeo-referee-strategy",
"description": "Use when anticipating referee objections for a Journal of Economic Geography (JEG) manuscript, where the panel typically pairs an economist with a geographer. Maps likely cross-disciplinary objections to fixes; it does not invent results."
}
Referee Strategy (jegeo-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- Before submission, to pre-empt the objections a two-community panel will raise
- The paper leans heavily toward one tradition and you need to armor the side a hostile referee will attack
- You want to decide which robustness/exhibit work is worth doing now vs. holding for an R&R
- You are choosing which reviewers to suggest or oppose for a JEG submission
The defining feature: you will face both communities
JEG's review almost always pairs an economist and a geographer (the board is drawn from both, and editors deliberately route across the bridge). Their objections are systematically different, and a paper that satisfies one often provokes the other. Plan for both, in one manuscript, under double-anonymous review.
| The economist referee tends to attack | The geographer referee tends to attack |
|---|---|
| identification, selection, weak instruments | "where is the geography?" — space as mere fixed effect |
| spatial autocorrelation / overstated inference | absence of mechanism, context, or institutional texture |
| external validity of a single setting | over-formalization that flattens real places |
| whether the model is identified vs. calibrated | a quantitative result with no theory it speaks to |
| magnitude and economic significance | scale/units chosen without geographic reasoning (MAUP) |
Pre-empting each side
For the economist referee: make the identification and inference bulletproof before submission — modern staggered estimators, Conley SEs, spillover bounds, a defended instrument (see jegeo-identification, jegeo-robustness). Report magnitudes, not asterisks. Address external validity head-on.
For the geographer referee: make place do real analytical work — name the mechanism in prose, justify the spatial scale substantively, engage the evolutionary/institutional literature, and ensure the maps argue (see jegeo-theory-model, jegeo-tables-figures). Never let space be only a control.
The bridge insurance: the single best defense is a paper where the mechanism is the same object both referees can grip — the economist sees it identified, the geographer sees it grounded in place. If you can write that one sentence, you can usually satisfy both.
Triage: fix now vs. hold for R&R
- Fix now: anything that could trigger a desk-reject or a "reject" from either community — missing mechanism, fragile spatial scale, overstated inference, no engagement with half the literature.
- Anticipate and pre-answer in the text: known limitations either side will raise — state them and bound them rather than hoping they go unnoticed.
- Hold for R&R only: large extensions a referee might request but that are not load-bearing for the current claim; signal willingness without pre-building everything.
Reviewer suggestions
- Suggest reviewers from both communities so the editor can balance the panel; a list skewed to one side signals a one-community paper.
- Oppose reviewers only for genuine conflicts; do not try to engineer an all-friendly panel — JEG editors expect cross-disciplinary scrutiny.
The cover letter as a routing signal
Under double-anonymous review the cover letter is your one chance to tell the editor how to balance the panel. Use it deliberately:
- Name the paper's contribution in a sentence that signals both communities — so the editor knows to seek one economist and one geographer rather than two of either.
- If the paper leans strongly to one tradition, say what it offers the other; this pre-empts the editor reading it as out-of-scope for half the board.
- Suggested and opposed reviewers in the system should reinforce the same message — a balanced list tells the editor you understand JEG is a bridge.
A cover letter that frames the paper as single-community invites a single-community desk read, which at JEG is a fast rejection.
Checklist
- Economist-side objections (identification, inference, external validity) pre-empted with specific fixes
- Geographer-side objections (mechanism, scale, place, literature) pre-empted with specific fixes
- One mechanism sentence both referees can grip is in the paper
- Known limitations stated and bounded in-text, not hidden
- Suggested reviewers span both communities; oppositions are genuine conflicts only
- Manuscript is double-anonymous-clean (body text, acknowledgments, file metadata)
Anti-patterns
- Armoring only the side you come from and leaving the other community's objection wide open
- Assuming both referees are economists (or both geographers) — JEG rarely works that way
- A reviewer-suggestion list drawn entirely from one tradition
- Hoping a known spatial-scale or mechanism weakness goes unnoticed rather than pre-answering it
- Trying to stack an all-friendly panel instead of building a paper that survives scrutiny
- Leaving authorship traces that defeat double-anonymity
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A paper using a quantitative-spatial model to evaluate a transport investment is strong on identification and inference. The author, an economist, armors only that side. Anticipate the geographer referee: they will ask why "region" is the unit (MAUP), where the institutional mechanism is (why do firms actually relocate?), and whether the model flattens real places into representative agents. Pre-empting that side before submission — adding a commuting-zone robustness check, a prose mechanism, and a paragraph on heterogeneity across regional contexts — converts a likely split decision into a clean R&R. The economist's questions were already answered; the unanticipated geographer was the real risk.
A simple pre-submission red-team
Read your own paper twice, once as each referee:
- As the economist: Is anything not identified? Is inference honest under spatial correlation? Would I believe the magnitude? Does it travel beyond this setting?
- As the geographer: Does place do analytical work, or is it a control? Is there a mechanism grounded in real regions and institutions? Is the scale defended? Did the authors engage my literature?
Any "no" in either pass is a risk to fix now or pre-answer in the text — not to discover in the reports.
Output format
【Journal】Journal of Economic Geography
【Skill】jegeo-referee-strategy
【Economist-side risks】top objections + fix status (now/anticipated/R&R)
【Geographer-side risks】top objections + fix status (now/anticipated/R&R)
【Bridge sentence】the one mechanism both referees can grip
【Reviewer suggestions】names/areas spanning both communities
【Anonymity】double-anonymous clean? [Y/N]
【Next skill】jegeo-submission
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:33
