Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› arecon-editor-strategy
arecon-editor-strategy
GitHub针对Annual Review of Economics约稿的编辑沟通策略，用于协商综述范围、预判审稿重点及处理作者-编辑关系。适用于与编委会或制作团队协商选题、调整内容平衡及应对修改意见时触发，旨在确保综述的准确性、平衡性与框架逻辑。
Trigger Scenarios
与编委会协商约稿综述的范围和大纲
预判ARE综述类文章审稿人的关注点
应编辑要求扩展、删减或重新平衡文章内容
校准委员会驱动的评审周期与出版时间表
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill arecon-editor-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "arecon-editor-strategy",
"description": "Use when working with the Annual Review of Economics (ARE) Editorial Committee and production team — negotiating the commissioned scope, anticipating what review referees evaluate, and the author–editor relationship on an invited article. Plans the interaction; it does not run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission) or draft the response letter (arecon-revision)."
}
Editor & Committee Strategy (arecon-editor-strategy)
When to trigger
- The Editorial Committee invited the topic and you are negotiating the review's scope
- You want to anticipate what ARE referees of a review will push on (different from a paper)
- The editor has asked you to expand, cut, or rebalance coverage
- You are calibrating how the Committee-driven review cycle and the Annual Reviews production timeline work
Who you are working with at ARE
ARE is run by an Editorial Committee of senior economists (current co-editors 检索于 2026-06-22：Philippe Aghion, Hélène Rey, Timothy Besley；re-verify before relying — the Committee rotates on five-year terms；以官网为准) plus the journal's production editors at Annual Reviews. Your primary partners differ by phase: the commissioning editor / Committee owns scope and acceptance; the production editor owns format, figures, copyediting, and the volume schedule. Because the article is commissioned, the relationship is more collaborative than adversarial — the Committee wants the review to succeed — but acceptance is not automatic: an invited manuscript still goes through review for accuracy, rigor, and balance (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
How review differs for a review article
ARE referees do not check an identification strategy or replicate results — there are none of the author's own. They evaluate the review as a review:
| Referee question | What they are really checking |
|---|---|
| Is the coverage complete? | the saturation/comprehensiveness from arecon-literature-synthesis — can they name an omitted literature? |
| Is it balanced and accurate? | even-handedness across schools; no self-promotion (arecon-evidence-standards) |
| Is there a real framework? | the spine vs. an annotated bibliography (arecon-organizing-framework) |
| Is it accessible? | can an adjacent economist follow it (arecon-writing-style) |
| Are the appraisals fair and correct? | does the author characterize each study's contribution and limits accurately |
| Is it the right scope? | not too narrow (field review) nor unfinishably broad (Handbook) |
Referees of an ARE review are often the reviewed authors themselves — the people whose work is being weighed will read how you weighed it. This makes balance and accurate attribution strategic, not just ethical.
Economics-specific editorial posture
- Treat the editor conversation as a scope contract about literatures, mechanisms, and evidence hierarchies: theory, quasi-experimental work, structural models, macro evidence, and applied micro fields may each expect different standards of synthesis.
- When an editor asks for broader coverage, answer by naming the economic question the added work changes: mechanism, welfare implication, identification lesson, policy margin, market design, or macro/finance channel.
- Push back on additions that turn the piece into a handbook chapter; ARE value comes from a field-level economic framework plus selective appraisal, not from listing every empirical setting.
Scope negotiation with the Committee
- Lock scope early, in writing. The invitation/acceptance stage is where scope is cheapest to change. Confirm the boundaries with the editor before months of reading.
- Negotiate, don't capitulate, on coverage asks. If a referee or editor wants an added literature, assess whether it fits the spine; propose where it goes or explain why it is out of scope — a review cannot grow without bound and must stay in the ~25–40-page envelope (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Surface conflicts of interest. If a likely referee is a central author you must critique, tell the editor — Annual Reviews requires disclosure of potential bias, and it protects both the process and you.
- Respect the volume schedule. ARE publishes one volume per year; production has fixed deadlines. A late draft can slip a whole volume. Confirm the timeline with the production editor and plan backward from it.
- Keep a coverage ledger. Maintain a short, sharable record of what is in scope and why (and what was deliberately excluded), so when the editor or a referee asks "why not X?", you answer with a decision already made.
Checklist
- Scope agreed with the commissioning editor in writing at the invitation stage
- Anticipated the six review-referee questions (coverage, balance/accuracy, framework, accessibility, appraisal, scope)
- Coverage-expansion asks evaluated against the spine and the page envelope before agreeing
- Conflicts of interest (referees who are reviewed authors) flagged to the editor
- Attribution and appraisals double-checked, knowing reviewed authors may referee
- Volume/production timeline calibrated with the production editor (volatile — confirm)
- A plan for which asks you accept vs. push back on, with reasons
Anti-patterns
- Treating an invitation as guaranteed acceptance — invited reviews are still refereed for rigor and balance
- Accepting every "please also cover…" until the review loses its spine and overruns the page envelope
- Mischaracterizing a reviewed author's work when that author may be your referee
- Hiding a conflict of interest instead of disclosing it (Annual Reviews requires disclosure)
- Missing the production deadline and slipping the volume
- Asserting current editors / timeline / process from memory rather than the live Annual Reviews pages
Output format
【Scope agreement】boundaries locked with editor in writing? Y/N
【Referee anticipation】coverage / balance / framework / accessibility / appraisal / scope — prepared each? Y/N
【Coverage asks】evaluated against spine + page envelope; accept/push-back plan? Y/N
【COI】reviewed-author referees flagged to editor? Y/N
【Timeline】volume/production schedule calibrated? Y/N · 待核实
【Source status】current editors/process re-confirmed on Annual Reviews pages? Y/N
【Next step】→ arecon-submission (preflight) → arecon-review-process (what to expect)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:23
