jue-writing-style
GitHub针对《城市经济学杂志》(JUE) 稿件的写作风格优化技能。在机制明确后，用于强化引言和摘要的空间机制表达，去除冗长方法论描述，确保符合 JUE 以空间机制为核心、具体地理背景和可解释量级的行文规范，提升对城市经济学受众的吸引力。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jue-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jue-writing-style",
"description": "Use when the prose of a Journal of Urban Economics (JUE) manuscript buries the spatial mechanism, or the intro\/abstract do not land for an urban-economics audience. Sharpens the writing to JUE house voice; it does not run analysis or build exhibits. Late-stage — invoke after identification and the mechanism settle."
}
Writing Style (jue-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The introduction explains the data and method before it says what is spatially new
- The abstract reads like a generic applied-micro paper — space could be deleted and it would still parse
- A reader cannot state the urban mechanism in one sentence after the intro
- The policy or theory implication is asserted at the end rather than threaded through
- The draft uses spatial-econometrics jargon where a plain mechanism sentence would land harder
The JUE intro arc
JUE referees read the first page to decide whether the paper is a real urban-economics contribution. A JUE introduction should, in order:
- Open with the spatial question and why it matters for cities, housing, or local policy — not with a literature gap.
- Name the spatial mechanism in one sentence a non-specialist urban economist would grasp (capitalization, agglomeration spillover, sorting, congestion, market access).
- State the identifying variation plainly — the boundary, the shift-share, the policy rollout — and why it is credible against sorting and spillovers.
- Give the headline magnitude in interpretable units (a % capitalization, an elasticity), early, so the reader knows the answer.
- Place the contribution against the right strand in 2–3 sentences (handoff from
jue-literature-positioning). - Preview the equilibrium reading — what the estimate means once agents re-sort, and the policy implication.
House voice
- Spatially grounded, mechanism-first. Lead with the economics of place; let the method serve the mechanism, not the reverse.
- Concrete geography. Name the cities, the corridor, the policy — readers of an urban journal expect institutional texture, not abstract "regions."
- Magnitudes over significance. "Prices rose 4.5%" beats "the coefficient is significant"; JUE cares what the number means for welfare and policy.
- Honest about the local estimand. Say plainly that a boundary or LATE estimate is local; do not let the prose imply a city-wide or national effect.
- Plain over jargon. Use "households sort across neighborhoods" rather than dense spatial-econometrics phrasing where the plain sentence is clearer.
Section discipline
- Abstract: spatial question → design → headline magnitude → implication, in ~150 words; references in full if cited (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 for exact limits).
- Data section: make the geography legible — units, coverage, how locations are defined and matched.
- Results: lead each table with the mechanism it tests, not "Table 3 shows."
- Conclusion: the equilibrium and policy reading, with the local-estimand caveat restated.
Checklist
- First paragraph states the spatial question and why it matters, not a literature gap
- The urban mechanism is stated in one plain sentence
- The identifying variation and its credibility (vs sorting/spillovers) are in the intro
- The headline magnitude appears early, in interpretable units
- The local nature of the estimand is honest throughout the prose
- Geography is concrete (named cities/policies), not abstract "regions"
- Abstract follows question → design → magnitude → implication
- The abstract collapses if spatial words are deleted (the fit test passes)
- The policy reading is earned by the estimand, not a bolted-on closing paragraph
Anti-patterns
- An intro that leads with method and data before the spatial mechanism
- An abstract from which "space" could be deleted with no loss — the fit tell
- Reporting significance instead of an interpretable magnitude
- Prose that lets a local boundary/LATE estimate read as a city-wide effect
- Abstract "regions" with no institutional or geographic texture
- Dense spatial-econometrics jargon substituting for a clear mechanism sentence
Words that signal a JUE paper vs a misfiled one
The vocabulary should make the spatial economics unavoidable. Lead with the primitives the field owns — capitalization, agglomeration, sorting, spatial equilibrium, market access, supply elasticity, incidence, reallocation. Avoid letting the paper drift into a-spatial framing ("treatment effect on outcome Y") where the geographic mechanism is the point. At the same time, do not over-reach into economic-geography vocabulary (clusters, milieu, path dependence) that signals JEG rather than JUE, nor into pure spatial-econometrics framing that signals RSUE. The register is applied urban economics: concrete, mechanism-first, magnitude-led.
Threading the policy reading
JUE values papers that bear on urban policy, but the implication must be earned by the estimand, not bolted on. Thread it: state in the intro why the magnitude matters for housing, transport, or place-based policy; in the results, note what each estimate implies; in the conclusion, give the policy reading with the local-estimand caveat restated. Avoid the failure mode of a rigorous paper that ends with a generic "policymakers should consider..." paragraph disconnected from what was actually identified.
The abstract test
The fastest fit diagnostic for a JUE submission is the abstract deletion test: cross out every spatial word and read what remains. If the abstract still describes a coherent, complete result, the paper is probably not a JUE paper — the geography is a label, not the economics. A JUE abstract should collapse without its spatial terms because capitalization, sorting, agglomeration, or market access is the result. Rewrite until the spatial mechanism is structurally necessary to the sentences, then confirm the four-beat arc (question → design → magnitude → implication) survives within the word limit (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 for the exact count).
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A draft opens: "We use a regression discontinuity design with administrative data to study attendance boundaries." A JUE rewrite leads with mechanism and magnitude: "Households pay to live on the better-school side of an attendance boundary; we show this capitalization is 4.5% of house value at the line, identified by comparing otherwise-identical homes a block apart. Because the boundary is arbitrary relative to housing and amenities, the jump isolates willingness to pay for school quality — a magnitude that bears directly on the welfare case for school-finance equalization." The method now serves the mechanism.
Output format
【Intro arc】question→mechanism→variation→magnitude→contribution→equilibrium present? [Y/N each]
【Mechanism sentence】one plain sentence
【Headline magnitude】in interpretable units, stated early? [Y/N]
【Estimand honesty】local estimand not oversold? [Y/N]
【Geography】concrete (named) vs abstract?
【Abstract】question→design→magnitude→implication, ~150w? [Y/N]
【Next skill】jue-replication-package
Do not run this skill until identification and the spatial mechanism are settled — rewriting the intro around a magnitude that still moves wastes the polish and invites a second rewrite after the next robustness round.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:58
