Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ectj-review-process
ectj-review-process
GitHub解析Econometrics Journal的审稿流程，涵盖一周初审、三月决策目标及格式合规要求。提供避免拒稿的策略，如精简摘要、规范排版及准备完整数据包，辅助作者规划投稿与修改节奏。
Trigger Scenarios
查询Econometrics Journal审稿周期
检查论文格式是否符合期刊要求
规划投稿时间线
了解Desk Rejection风险因素
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ectj-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ectj-review-process",
"description": "Use when interpreting or planning around The Econometrics Journal's one-week editorial screen, editor assignment, three-month decision target, resubmission window, conformance rejection, and replication checks."
}
EctJ Review Process
Use this to plan around the RES review pipeline. Do not infer the peer-review blinding model; the current official pages reviewed for this pack do not name it.
Process model
- RES states that conforming EctJ submissions are screened by the Editor-in-Chief and possibly an editor.
- Within about one week, a paper can be desk-rejected or assigned to an editor.
- RES states a target of a decision within about three months.
- Resubmissions are normally expected within one month, sometimes three.
- Formatting nonconformance is not cosmetic; official instructions say nonconforming submissions are routinely rejected.
- Replication package compliance becomes decisive after conditional acceptance.
Planning implications
- Treat the first week as a scope and conformance gate: summary, page length, proofs placement, fee, application, and template issues can kill the paper before referees see the technical details.
- Treat the three-month target as a reason to submit a complete package. Thin simulations or missing code will become a revision bottleneck rather than a harmless omission.
- If desk risk is high, fix the summary and opening two pages first; that is where the editor sees whether the paper is leading-case econometrics or a field application with a method appendix.
Desk-screen packet
Prepare a five-item packet for the editor-facing opening:
- 150-word-or-less summary that names the econometric object and applied value.
- First-page theorem/result sentence with the leading-case scope.
- One paragraph showing the closest incumbent method and what breaks.
- One sentence identifying the empirical application and why it is not decorative.
- One sentence on where proofs, simulations, and replication files live.
Conformance triggers behind one-week desk rejections
The RES conformance-rejection rule makes format failures fatal at the screen, not cosmetic. Map each trigger to its governing rule before submitting:
| Trigger | Governing RES rule | Pre-screen fix |
|---|---|---|
| Printed paper over the page norm | Not normally exceeding 20 pages including the printed appendix | Compress via ectj-tables-figures and ectj-writing-style |
| Summary over the word limit | Summary of no more than 150 words | Rewrite around the econometric object plus applied value |
| Proofs parked online | Proofs belong in the main text or printed appendix | Repatriate derivations, rebalance the page budget |
| No empirical application | Application expected even for theory papers | Add a diagnostic application, not an afterthought |
| Wrong template or missing fee | RES/EctJ LaTeX template; flat fee plus VAT | Recompile in template, confirm the fee path on the live page |
Illustrative pipeline calendar
Plan backwards from the RES timing statements (dates illustrative; confirm policies against the journal's current author guidelines):
- Week 0: submit via Editorial Express, fee paid, replication restrictions disclosed.
- Week 1: screen outcome — desk rejection or assignment to an editor.
- Months 1-3: referee reports under the three-month decision target; use this time to harden the replication package rather than waiting idle.
- Decision plus one month: the normal resubmission window for an R&R; request the three-month window early if new simulations are needed, rather than missing the clock silently.
The screen evaluates conformance and leading-case scope; the referee stage evaluates the theory-simulation-application chain. Preparing for the second stage never substitutes for passing the first.
Signals to extract from each stage
- A desk rejection within days usually signals scope or conformance, not refereeing depth; re-read the leading-case framing before blaming the method.
- An assignment past the first week means referees will judge the theory-simulation-application chain; pre-draft answers for the weakest link now.
- Slippage past the three-month target supports one polite status query through the editorial office (ectj@res.org.uk), not serial chasing.
- At conditional acceptance the binding constraint becomes the replication package; schedule the full rerun before celebrating.
Output format
[Stage] pre-screen / under review / R&R / conditional acceptance / accepted
[Screen risk] <scope, format, page, application, fee, or replication>
[Likely editor question] <one sentence>
[Resubmission clock] <deadline or unknown>
[Next move] <specific action>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:30
