Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› ecj-referee-strategy
ecj-referee-strategy
GitHub针对《经济学报》投稿前的预-mortem分析，预判严苛审稿人对广泛兴趣、识别因果及机制的质疑。构建威胁清单并提前在正文中回应，避免拒稿，而非撰写回复信。
触发场景
准备提交前希望强化论文以应对广泛兴趣型审稿人
需要预判审稿意见而非被动应对
察觉到潜在异议但未在文中解决
选择如何阐述贡献以通过严格评审
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ecj-referee-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ecj-referee-strategy",
"description": "Use when running a pre-submission pre-mortem on a The Economic Journal (EJ) manuscript to anticipate the broad-interest, identification, and mechanism objections a demanding general-interest referee will raise. Builds the threat list and pre-empts it; it does not write the R&R response (see ecj-rebuttal)."
}
Referee Strategy & Pre-Mortem (ecj-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- Identification, model, and robustness are in place and you want to harden the paper before submitting
- You want to anticipate the report rather than react to it
- You sense a likely objection but have not addressed it in the text
- You are choosing how to frame the contribution to survive a demanding general-interest referee
How EJ referees read
EJ referees read the paper as an economic argument for a broad audience and probe two things: is it credible, and is it of broad interest to economists at large? The prototypical EJ referee asks "so what — why should the wider profession care?" as hard as "is this identified?". They are unimpressed by a clean coefficient with no economic meaning or no general relevance, and they will name the alternative mechanism or the over-claimed generality. EJ review is single-blind (referees know who you are; you do not know them; verified 2026-06-20), so do not anonymize. Anticipating these objections is worth more than any extra robustness table, because a single unanswered first-order objection — especially "this is too narrow for EJ" — sinks the paper.
The objection taxonomy (pre-empt each in the text)
- "Too narrow / not of broad interest." — A result only one subfield would read. Pre-empt:
ecj-topic-selection/ecj-literature-positioning— argue the general lesson and external relevance explicitly. - "Where is the economics?" — A reduced-form result with no model/mechanism. Pre-empt:
ecj-theory-model— state the mechanism and the prediction it tests. - "Your mechanism vs. the obvious alternative." — A rival economic story produces the same sign. Pre-empt:
ecj-robustness— a discriminating test. - "Selection / endogeneity / weak design." — Treatment or sample is endogenous; TWFE on staggered timing. Pre-empt:
ecj-identification— defend the assumption, show falsification, use a modern estimator. - "What identifies the parameter?" (structural) — Pre-empt: explicit "what identifies what" + untargeted-moment validation.
- "Over-claimed generality." — the headline asserts external validity the design cannot support. Pre-empt: bound the claim to what the evidence licenses (
ecj-robustness). - "Hard to read / exposition." — a generalist gets lost. Pre-empt:
ecj-writing-style— clear exposition is part of the EJ bar, not optional polish.
Pre-mortem procedure
- Write the referee report you fear, in their voice, listing the three objections most likely to trigger a reject.
- For each, decide: fixable in text now (do it), needs new analysis (do it or scope it), or a genuine limitation (state it honestly and bound its damage).
- Identify the one first-order objection that would sink the paper — at EJ this is frequently "too narrow" or "no mechanism" — and make sure the manuscript answers it before a referee has to ask.
- Suggesting referees / handling COIs: name scholars who know the literature and would engage fairly; note conflicts honestly — the single-blind portal will flag obvious co-author/advisor ties.
Checklist
- "Too narrow for EJ" pre-empted with an explicit broad-interest / general-lesson argument
- "Where is the economics?" answered by an explicit mechanism/model
- The leading rival mechanism named and tested against
- Selection/endogeneity threat defended with a falsification test; modern estimator where needed
- (Structural) parameter identification made transparent
- Generality claims bounded to what the evidence supports
- Exposition checked so a generalist can follow the argument
- The single most dangerous objection identified and pre-empted in the text
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a narrow result and hoping the referee overlooks the broad-interest bar
- Anonymizing for a single-blind journal, or suggesting referees with a conflict the portal will catch
- A robustness section that never tests the leading rival mechanism
- Assuming broad importance instead of demonstrating it
- Hiding a known limitation rather than bounding it (referees find it anyway)
- Treating exposition as cosmetic when at EJ it is part of the decision
Output format
【Feared report】the 3 objections most likely to trigger reject
【First-order threat】the single objection that would sink it (often "too narrow" / "no mechanism")
【Pre-empt plan】per objection: fix-in-text / new-analysis / state-as-limitation
【Broad-interest + rival-mechanism status】addressed? [y/n]
【Exposition pass】a generalist can follow it? [y/n]
【Next】ecj-submission
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 14:30
