Aejpol referee strategy
Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/AEJ-Economic-Policy-Skills/skills/aejpol-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 aejpol-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 how AEJ: Economic Policy referees and editors will read a manuscript, before submission or before an R&R, to pre-empt the objections that sink policy-evaluation papers. Maps likely pushback to fixes and calibrates expectations; it does not write the response letter (see aejpol-rebuttal) or fix the identification.
SKILL.md
4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Referee Strategy — Reading the Manuscript as an AEJ: Policy Referee (aejpol-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- Before submitting: you want to find the objections a referee will raise first
- Deciding whether the paper is ready or needs another round of work
- Calibrating expectations about the AEA single-blind process and timeline
- Triaging which weaknesses to fix vs. disclose before submission
How AEJ: Policy referees read
AEJ: Policy reviews are single-blind through the AEA system (referees see the authors; authors do not see referees), refereed by economists who expect both credible causal evidence and a policy-relevant welfare reading. A referee typically tests four things in order; a paper dies at the first one it fails:
- Is it a policy paper of broad interest? (the
aejpol-topic-selectiontest) — a clean estimate with no policy lever or welfare reading invites a "better suited to a field journal / AEJ: Applied" rejection. - Is the causal claim credible? (the
aejpol-identificationtest) — staggered TWFE, asserted parallel trends, a weak instrument, or an over-generalized RDD are the usual kill shots. - Does the welfare/policy reading follow? (the
aejpol-theory-modeltest) — a hand-waved "this is welfare-improving" or a sufficient-statistic formula whose assumptions are violated. - Is it robust and reproducible? (the
aejpol-robustness/aejpol-replication-packagetests).
Pre-empting the predictable objections
| Likely referee objection | Pre-emption to build before submitting |
|---|---|
| "This isn't a policy paper / not broad-interest" | Lead with the policy question + welfare stake; state the cost-benefit reading in the abstract |
| "Staggered TWFE is biased here" | Heterogeneity-robust DID + Bacon decomposition + flat leads, in the main paper |
| "Parallel trends is assumed, not shown" | Event-study leads + honest-DID bounds |
| "Exclusion restriction is not credible" | Institutional + theoretical defense + falsification |
| "The welfare claim is hand-waved" | Explicit sufficient-statistic / MVPF / cost-benefit derivation |
| "External validity is unclear" | Heterogeneity by setting; explicit scope of the policy lesson |
| "Effect is significant but tiny / not policy-relevant" | Benchmark the magnitude against budget / status quo |
| "Not reproducible / data unavailable" | AEA-compliant package + restricted-data access path ready |
Calibrating expectations
- AEA review is thorough; expect a small number of detailed referee reports and an editor letter. Plan for an R&R rather than a clean accept.
- Decide in advance which objections you will fix (identification, robustness) vs. bound and disclose (external validity, a calibrated welfare parameter). Disclosing a limitation precisely is stronger than hiding it.
Checklist
- The "is this a policy paper?" objection is pre-empted on page one
- The single most likely identification objection has a main-text answer (not relegated to the appendix)
- The welfare reading is derived, not asserted
- Each predictable objection is mapped to an exhibit or paragraph that answers it
- Limitations you cannot fix are bounded and disclosed precisely
- Reproducibility is ready before the editor asks
Anti-patterns
- Submitting hoping referees will not notice the staggered-TWFE / pre-trends problem
- Hiding a known limitation instead of bounding and disclosing it
- A welfare claim with no derivation, trusting the referee to grant it
- Putting the decisive robustness check only in an online appendix the referee may skip
- Mis-calibrating to a generic-journal process and ignoring AEA single-blind norms
Worked vignette (illustrative)
An education-policy paper using a funding-formula RDD anticipates three objections: (1) "local estimate only" → states the estimand and argues the threshold population is the marginal policy population; (2) "manipulation at the cutoff" → CJM density test + donut RDD; (3) "no welfare reading" → translates the test-score effect into a cost-per-standard-deviation and compares to class-size policies. All three answers are in the main text, so no referee can raise them as fatal.
Output format
【Broad-interest verdict】would a referee call this a policy paper? [Y/N + fix]
【Top identification objection】+ main-text pre-emption
【Welfare-reading objection】derived or hand-waved? + fix
【Objection→answer map】[objection → exhibit/paragraph]
【Fix vs. disclose list】what to fix now / what to bound and disclose
【Next step】aejpol-submission (if ready) or back to the named skill