Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› journal-of-economic-literature
journal-of-economic-literature
GitHub用于评估文章是否适合发表在《经济文献杂志》(JEL)，指导综述/评论类文章的定位、框架重构及投稿策略。涵盖期刊定位、选题匹配度、综合论证标准、结构风格及拒稿风险，旨在帮助作者将研究转化为符合JEL要求的权威文献综述或议程设定文章。
Trigger Scenarios
作者希望撰写或提议JEL综述文章
学者考虑撰写领域综述而非原创实证论文
需要将综合/议程设定内容重构为综述格式
需要了解JEL提案流程、拒稿风险及替代期刊
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill journal-of-economic-literature -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "journal-of-economic-literature",
"description": "Use when targeting Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) or deciding whether a survey\/review article fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, contribution bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Journal of Economic Literature (journal-of-economic-literature)
Journal positioning
JEL is the American Economic Association's authoritative survey and review journal — the source of the JEL classification codes used across economics. It publishes mostly solicited, field-defining literature reviews and review essays that synthesize a body of work, organize what is known, and set the agenda for a field, for the whole discipline. The contribution is synthesis and judgment, not new empirical results; pieces are typically initiated by proposal/invitation, and the bar is authoritative command of a literature.
This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting or proposing, re-check the live author instructions on the AEA site and the editorial submission system.
When to trigger
- The author wants to write or propose a survey/review for JEL, or has a field-defining synthesis in mind.
- A scholar with deep command of a literature is considering a review essay rather than an original-research paper.
- A piece is really a synthesis/agenda-setting review and needs to be framed as such rather than as new empirics.
- The author needs JEL's proposal route, desk-reject risks, and a credible review-venue alternative list.
Scope & topic fit
- Comprehensive, authoritative surveys that organize and evaluate a substantial economics literature.
- Review essays on influential books or bodies of work, and agenda-setting assessments of a field's progress and open questions.
- Methodological or conceptual syntheses that clarify how a literature fits together and where it should go.
- Not original empirical estimation, a new model, or a narrow paper — the value is synthesis, structure, and judgment.
Method & evidence bar
- Command and synthesis are the filter: the piece must demonstrate authoritative, balanced mastery of the literature, not a partisan or selective reading.
- The review must impose structure — a framework that organizes findings, reconciles conflicts, and identifies what is settled versus contested.
- New analysis, if any, is illustrative and in service of synthesis, not the contribution; the article does not stand on original estimates.
- Coverage must be current and fair, citing the literature comprehensively and accurately; given the solicited norm, a strong proposal is the entry point.
Structure & house style
- Pitch by proposal first: a clear scope, a proposed organizing framework, why the synthesis is needed now, and the author's standing to write it.
- The article states what the field has established, where it disagrees, and what the open questions are, with a coherent organizing structure throughout.
- JEL uses JEL classification codes (its own system) and an unstructured abstract; expect substantial length and a comprehensive reference list.
- Exhibits, if used, summarize and organize the literature (taxonomies, timelines, comparison tables) rather than present new estimates.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Journal of Economic Literature submission guidelines" / proposal instructions, and follow the current AEA / editorial version.
- Re-check whether the piece should begin as a proposal/inquiry to the editors, and the current expectations for solicited vs. unsolicited submissions.
- Re-check formatting, JEL-code, abstract, length, and reference conventions, and any disclosure/conflict requirements on the submission system.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence stating the literature being synthesized and why a JEL-level review is needed now.
- The contribution is synthesis, structure, and judgment — not new empirical results.
- The piece imposes a clear organizing framework and treats the literature comprehensively and fairly.
- The route (proposal/inquiry vs. full submission) matches current editorial expectations.
- Formatting, JEL codes, abstract, and references match the current official guide.
Common desk-reject triggers
- An original-research paper submitted as if it were a review.
- A narrow or selective survey that does not command the full literature or imposes no organizing framework.
- A partisan review that argues the author's own position rather than synthesizing the field.
- Skipping the proposal route where the editors expect a prior inquiry, or an out-of-scope topic.
Re-routing decision
- An accessible, non-technical symposium piece for a broad economist audience →
journal-of-economic-perspectives. - Original empirical or theoretical contributions →
american-economic-review,quarterly-journal-of-economics,journal-of-political-economy, or the relevant AEJ. - A field-specific survey better placed in a field outlet → the relevant field review series or top field journal.
- A methods-focused review → a methods venue such as
journal-of-economic-perspectives(accessible) or a field annual review.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Journal of Economic Literature
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is this an authoritative, framework-driven synthesis rather than new results?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <proposal route / submission system / JEL codes / length / references>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:08
