Aeja referee strategy
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/AEJ-Applied-Economics-Skills/skills/aeja-referee-strategy
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aeja-referee-strategyAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when anticipating the objections a sophisticated American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) referee will raise, so a manuscript pre-empts them before submission or addresses them in revision. Plans the defense; it does not draft the response letter (aeja-rebuttal) or run the submission preflight (aeja-submission).
SKILL.md
4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Referee Strategy (aeja-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- The paper is near submission and you want to stress-test it against the referees it will draw
- You need to decide which robustness checks to run before submitting vs. hold in reserve
- An R&R arrived and you must map referee concerns to concrete responses
- You want to understand how AEJ: Applied's single-blind peer-review process shapes strategy
How AEJ: Applied review works (plan around it)
AEJ: Applied uses single-blind review through the AEA ScholarOne system: author identities are visible to referees, while referee identities remain anonymous to authors. An editor assigns the paper to a coeditor or handles it directly, and before a first R&R the handling coeditor consults a second coeditor. Referees here are identification-literate applied microeconomists; the modal report attacks the credibility of the design first, then magnitude/mechanism, then external validity. The editor weighs whether the contribution is novel and the design clears the bar. Plan to pre-empt the predictable objections in the paper itself, leaving the response letter for genuinely new asks.
The objection map (pre-empt in the paper)
| Referee objection (by design) | Pre-emption to build in now |
|---|---|
| "TWFE is biased under staggered timing" | heterogeneity-robust estimator + Bacon decomposition already in the paper |
| "Parallel trends is not credible" | clean pre-trend leads + honest-DID sensitivity bound |
| "Instrument is not excludable" | institutional + theoretical exclusion argument + falsification tests |
| "RD jump is manipulation / bandwidth-driven" | density test + bandwidth sensitivity + donut |
| "Effect is just selection / confounding" | Oster δ / coefficient-stability bounds |
| "Local/ITT effect ≠ the policy-relevant effect" | explicit estimand + calibrated external-validity discussion |
| "Inference too narrow (few clusters)" | wild-cluster bootstrap / randomization inference |
| "Mechanism is a black box" | a test that distinguishes the proposed channel from rivals |
| "Not reproducible" | the openICPSR package built and referenced (aeja-replication-package) |
Strategy craft
- War-game the design. For each identifying assumption, write the sentence a hostile referee would use; if you cannot answer it in one paragraph + one exhibit, that is a hole to fix before submission.
- Pre-empt, do not hide. Address the obvious weakness head-on in the text; referees punish papers that ignore the elephant.
- Sequence robustness. Put decisive checks in the main paper; hold secondary ones for the appendix/online appendix so the paper stays readable.
- Anticipate the external-validity ask. It is almost guaranteed for a local design — have the estimand and scope statement ready.
- Make reproducibility visible. A referee who sees a clean package is less inclined to suspect specification search.
The shared, venue-neutral objection catalog is in
../../resources/README.md(links to the empirical-methods hub) — walk it before drafting.
Checklist
- Title/byline/front matter align with AEJ: Applied's single-blind process
- Each identifying assumption has a written hostile-referee sentence and a one-paragraph+one-exhibit answer
- The paper's biggest weakness is addressed in the text, not hidden
- Decisive robustness in the main paper; secondary checks in the appendix
- Estimand + external-validity scope stated to pre-empt the guaranteed ask
- Reproducibility package referenced so specification-search suspicion is defused
- Mechanism evidence distinguishes the proposed channel from rivals
Anti-patterns
- Ignoring the obvious design weakness and hoping no referee notices
- Writing self-citations or acknowledgments as if the venue required anonymous review
- Dumping every robustness check into the main text so the paper becomes unreadable
- No estimand statement, guaranteeing an external-validity round-trip
- Treating the replication package as someone else's problem until acceptance
Output format
【Front matter】single-blind title/byline and disclosures ready? [Y/N]
【Objection map】per assumption: [objection → pre-emption in paper]
【Biggest weakness】addressed in text? [Y/N] — how: ___
【Robustness placement】main vs appendix split: ___
【External validity】estimand + scope stated? [Y/N]
【Reproducibility visible】package referenced? [Y/N]
【Next step】aeja-submission