Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› journal-of-economic-perspectives
journal-of-economic-perspectives
GitHub用于判断文章是否适合Journal of Economic Perspectives期刊，提供选题定位、改写建议及拒稿风险预警。适用于撰写面向广泛经济学家的通俗综述、专题讨论或提案，强调清晰表达与综合而非技术细节。
Trigger Scenarios
作者希望撰写或提议JEP文章
需要将技术性论文转化为面向大众经济学家的通俗作品
评估文章是否符合JEP的通讯优先和研讨会风格
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill journal-of-economic-perspectives -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "journal-of-economic-perspectives",
"description": "Use when targeting Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) or deciding whether an accessible symposium-style 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 Perspectives (journal-of-economic-perspectives)
Journal positioning
JEP is the American Economic Association's accessible, communication-first journal. It publishes non-technical, symposium-style articles that explain economic ideas, evidence, and debates to the broad community of economists — readers across all fields, not specialists in the author's subfield. The contribution is clear exposition and synthesis of what economists should know about a topic; articles are largely solicited around themed symposia, and the prized quality is communication, not original estimation or technical apparatus.
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 JEP article, or has an accessible synthesis aimed at all economists.
- A scholar wants to communicate a literature, debate, or set of facts to a general economist audience without heavy technical machinery.
- A technical paper's broad message could become an accessible companion piece for the profession at large.
- The author needs JEP's symposium/proposal route, desk-reject risks, and a credible accessible-venue alternative list.
Scope & topic fit
- Accessible accounts of an economic topic, debate, policy area, or empirical regularity for non-specialist economists.
- Symposium contributions organized around a theme, giving the reader a balanced map of what is known and contested.
- "Recommendations for further reading," retrospectives, and perspective pieces that frame a field's big ideas.
- Not original empirical estimation, formal theorems, or a comprehensive technical literature review (that is JEL's role).
Method & evidence bar
- Communication is the filter: the article must be readable by any economist, explaining ideas and evidence without jargon, heavy notation, or original estimation.
- It should synthesize and interpret existing evidence fairly, conveying magnitudes and intuition rather than deriving results.
- Claims must be accurate and well-sourced even though the prose is non-technical; balance and judgment matter more than novelty.
- No new structural model, theorem, or regression table is expected; technical apparatus is minimized by design.
Structure & house style
- Pitch by proposal / symposium fit first: a clear topic, the intended takeaway for a general economist, and why it belongs in JEP.
- The article leads with the question and its stakes, then walks the reader through the key ideas, evidence, and open debates in plain prose.
- JEP uses minimal technical apparatus: few or no equations, light on tables, figures used for intuition; references support but do not dominate.
- The tone is explanatory and balanced; the reader should leave understanding the topic, not navigating a technical proof.
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 Perspectives submission guidelines" / proposal instructions, and follow the current AEA / editorial version.
- Re-check whether the piece should begin as a proposal/symposium inquiry to the editors, and current expectations for solicited vs. unsolicited submissions.
- Re-check formatting, abstract, length, figure, 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 takeaway a non-specialist economist should leave with.
- The contribution is accessible synthesis and communication, not original estimation or theory.
- The prose is jargon-free and readable across fields; technical apparatus is minimized.
- The route (proposal/symposium vs. full submission) matches current editorial expectations.
- Formatting, length, figures, and references match the current official guide.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A technical research paper submitted as if it were a JEP article.
- An exhaustive, citation-heavy literature review that belongs in JEL rather than an accessible perspective.
- Jargon, heavy notation, or original estimation that the general-economist audience cannot follow.
- A narrow, partisan, or op-ed-style piece with no balanced synthesis or general-interest takeaway.
Re-routing decision
- An authoritative, comprehensive, technical literature review →
journal-of-economic-literature. - Original empirical or theoretical contributions →
american-economic-review,quarterly-journal-of-economics,journal-of-political-economy, or the relevant AEJ. - A single crisp new result →
aer-insights; policy-facing original work →aej-economic-policy. - A field-specific accessible piece → the relevant field outlet or annual-review series.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Journal of Economic Perspectives
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is this accessible, balanced synthesis for a general-economist audience?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <proposal/symposium route / submission system / length / figures / references>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:08
