Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› review-of-financial-studies
review-of-financial-studies
GitHub针对金融顶刊RFS的投稿适配、重构与拒稿风险评估工具。涵盖选题定位、方法论创新标准、写作规范及Registered Reports轨道建议，辅助作者判断稿件匹配度并优化投稿策略。
触发场景
作者指定RFS或金融顶三为投稿目标
论文涉及方法或理论创新，需在JF/JFE/RFS间选择
考虑RFS预注册报告模式
需要了解RFS拒稿风险及替代期刊
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill review-of-financial-studies -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "review-of-financial-studies",
"description": "Use when targeting Review of Financial Studies (RFS) or deciding whether a finance manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Review of Financial Studies (review-of-financial-studies)
Journal positioning
The Review of Financial Studies is published by the Society for Financial Studies and, with JF and JFE, one of the finance "top-3." It is the top-3 outlet most associated with methodological innovation — new methods, new theory, and new ways of looking at asset pricing and corporate finance — and it runs a registered-reports track for hypothesis-driven empirical work. The readership is the whole finance profession, so a paper must matter beyond its niche and ideally push the methodological or conceptual frontier.
This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the SFS / RFS / Oxford site and the editorial submission system.
When to trigger
- The author names RFS (or the finance top-3) as the target venue.
- A finance paper introduces a new method, a new theoretical angle, or a methodologically innovative empirical design, and the author is choosing among JF / JFE / RFS.
- The author is considering RFS's registered-reports track for a pre-specified, hypothesis-driven study.
- The author needs RFS's desk-reject risks and a credible top-3 / top-field alternative list.
Scope & topic fit
- Asset pricing (empirical and theoretical) and corporate finance, with a premium on methodological or conceptual novelty rather than one more anomaly.
- Banking/intermediation, market microstructure, household and behavioral finance, FinTech and new-data settings.
- Theory that opens a new question or a new modeling approach, and empirical work that brings a new identification or estimation idea.
- Pre-registered, hypothesis-driven empirical studies suitable for the registered-reports format.
Method & evidence bar
- RFS rewards methodological innovation, but the new method must be correct, well-motivated, and shown to matter — not novelty for its own sake.
- Asset-pricing empirics meet current inference standards (multiple-testing/p-hacking, proper standard errors, factor-zoo skepticism, out-of-sample and placebo evidence).
- Corporate-finance causal claims need a real source of variation with modern DiD/IV/RDD rigor and pre-empted confounders.
- Theory must deliver testable, economically interpretable implications; registered reports must specify hypotheses, data, and analysis in advance.
Structure & house style
- The introduction states the question, the methodological or conceptual advance, the identification or model, and the headline magnitude early, and says why it matters for finance broadly.
- Distinguish the contribution from the nearest JF/JFE/RFS papers explicitly; "no one has tested X" is not a contribution.
- RFS uses an unstructured abstract and JEL codes; an Internet Appendix carries robustness, derivations, and secondary results.
- Exhibits report economic magnitudes (not only t-stats); the central result should be legible from one table or figure.
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 "Review of Financial Studies submission guidelines" and follow the current SFS/Oxford version.
- Re-check the submission fee, formatting, abstract/JEL, anonymization, and the disclosure policy (data sources, conflicts, prior circulation).
- Re-check the current registered-reports track rules and the data/code and Internet Appendix requirements.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence stating why this result matters to the broad finance profession.
- The contribution is stated as method / theory / identification / new measurement, not as a significant coefficient.
- The introduction positions the paper against the most recent JF/JFE/RFS work on this question.
- Inference is robust to current standards; if a registered report, the pre-specified design is complete.
- Disclosure, data sources, and the Internet Appendix are ready.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A "new method" that is unmotivated, incorrect, or shown not to change any substantive conclusion.
- A "new anomaly / new factor" paper that does not clear the multiple-testing and robustness bar.
- A corporate-finance regression with endogeneity and no credible source of variation.
- A paper that is really accounting (
the-accounting-review,journal-of-accounting-and-economics) or economics (journal-of-political-economy) framed as finance.
Re-routing decision
- Broad top-3 importance with less methodological novelty →
journal-of-finance; quantitatively serious / structural empirics →journal-of-financial-economics. - Second-tier-elite finance →
review-of-finance,journal-of-financial-and-quantitative-analysis,journal-of-corporate-finance. - Banking/intermediation, markets, or international →
journal-of-financial-intermediation,journal-of-financial-markets,journal-of-international-money-and-finance. - Pure quantitative/derivatives theory →
mathematical-finance; econometrics-of-finance methods →journal-of-empirical-finance; large-volume applied →journal-of-banking-and-finance.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Review of Financial Studies
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does the method / identification / theory clear the finance top-3 bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <submission system / fee / registered reports / Internet Appendix / data>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 13:11
