jeg-review-process
GitHub指导用户遵循《经济增长杂志》(JEG) 的编辑流程，涵盖投稿前的风险预判、避免因选题不符导致的快速拒稿，以及针对理论与实证审稿人的修改策略。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jeg-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jeg-review-process",
"description": "Use when navigating the Journal of Economic Growth (JEG) editorial process — the Springer Nature submission path, editor screening for growth-and-development fit, theory and empirics referee expectations, desk-reject patterns, and decision-stage planning across review rounds."
}
Review Process (jeg-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to know how JEG will read a manuscript before submission
- A submitted paper is in review and you need to interpret likely concerns
- You need to prepare for a revision after a decision letter
Reviewer lens
JEG is a specialist outlet for economic growth and dynamic macroeconomics. The review question is not "is this economics?" but "does this materially advance how we understand long-run growth, development, and dynamics?"
Reviewers typically evaluate:
- Fit with growth and dynamic macroeconomics
- Theory originality, assumptions, and model tractability
- Empirical identification and data credibility where relevant
- Calibration discipline and sensitivity where relevant
- Connection to core growth mechanisms and prior literature
- Springer submission completeness and declarations
Known process facts
- Submission runs through the Springer Nature manuscript portal.
- Editor-in-Chief listed in the source map: Oded Galor.
- Peer-review model was not confirmed as single- or double-blind; do not assume.
- No submission/handling fee; optional OA APC applies only if chosen.
Pre-review risk table
Before submission, write one row for each likely objection:
Risk | Why a growth referee may raise it | Evidence in manuscript | Repair before submission
Common high-cost risks are: the mechanism is not about long-run growth, the model is too reduced-form to explain dynamics, the calibration is not tied to moments, the empirics show correlation without a growth interpretation, or the paper ignores canonical growth/development literature. If the repair requires new analysis, do it before upload; JEG's specialist audience is unlikely to treat a vague promise as enough.
Desk-screen failure patterns
The fastest rejections at this journal are fit failures visible from the abstract alone:
- A program evaluation with a growth word in the title but a short-run, partial-equilibrium estimand.
- A persistence regression presented as the whole paper — no mechanism, no model, no interpretation of the magnitude.
- A cross-country growth regression with a long control list and no identification stance.
- A theory paper whose dynamics are incidental — a static result relabeled as growth.
- A single-country case study lacking any comparative-development framing or external benchmark.
- A growth-accounting decomposition with no question behind it — at this venue, accounting arithmetic motivates a paper but cannot be one.
If the introduction cannot name which divergence, convergence, or transition question it moves, expect a desk decision rather than referee reports.
Worked vignette — anticipating the referee split
Illustrative case: a unified-growth-theory paper pairing a calibration with a historical validation panel will often draw one theory referee and one empirical referee. Plan for both scripts:
- The theory referee reproduces the balanced-growth-path algebra, asks which assumption delivers the take-off timing, and tests whether the comparative statics survive relaxing it.
- The empirical referee audits the validation panel: the vintage of each historical series, spatial or temporal correlation in the standard errors, and whether the targeted moments mechanically guarantee the "validation."
- Pre-empt the split with a one-page table mapping assumptions to data moments — it answers both camps at once. Papers serving only one camp tend to draw a split verdict and a heavy revision.
Process expectations (hedged)
- A quarterly Springer journal with a specialist single-field referee pool: reports tend to be deep rather than fast, so budget several months per round before any status query.
- Decisions follow the standard reject / major revision / minor revision / accept ladder; the exact peer-review model and current timings should be confirmed against the journal's live author guidelines.
- Major revisions here are evidence-heavy: they typically demand new spatial-inference diagnostics, mechanism exhibits, or untargeted-moment checks — reserve analysis capacity before the letter arrives.
Output format
[Stage] pre-submit / under review / revision
[Main risk] fit / theory / empirics / calibration / exposition
[Action] ...
[Next step] jeg-submission or jeg-rebuttal
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 13:34
