agentsclimarketplace

Aejmic writing style

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/AEJ-Microeconomics-Skills/skills/aejmic-writing-style

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。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aejmic-writing-style

Assembled 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 prose buries the result or the abstract/intro do not land for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript. Applies AEA house style and the theory-paper intro arc; it does not produce the result (see aejmic-theory-model) or build exhibits (see aejmic-tables-figures).

SKILL.md

4.7 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Writing Style & the AEJ: Micro Intro Arc (aejmic-writing-style)

When to trigger

  • The introduction opens with machinery (the model's notation, an estimator) instead of the question
  • A reader cannot state your main result after the first page
  • The abstract describes activities ("we study…") rather than the result
  • Late-stage polish before submission (do this after the model and proofs settle)

The AEJ: Micro intro arc

A theory-first AEA journal rewards an introduction that makes a broad micro audience see the question and the result fast. The arc:

question / puzzle → model + equilibrium concept (in words) → main result (a proposition, stated in words) → what drives it / which assumption is doing the work → contribution & scope → brief roadmap.

  • Open with the economic question, not the model. A non-specialist should grasp what is being asked in the first breath.
  • State the result in words on page one — the proposition's content, not its proof. "We show that X, and this happens because Y."
  • Name the driving force early (which assumption / mechanism delivers the result) — this is the AEJ: Micro reader's payoff and ties to aejmic-identification.
  • Frame the contribution as a result with scope, including what it does not establish.
  • The literature delta belongs here in one or two sentences (full treatment in aejmic-literature-positioning), not a survey.

AEA house-style conventions

  • Abstract: short and result-bearing; lead with the result, not the activity. (Confirm the current word limit on the AEA author page — volatile; 检索于 2026-06,以官网为准.)
  • JEL codes and keywords required.
  • Statistical presentation: for any empirical/experimental content, report standard errors / confidence sets, not significance asterisks.
  • Notation discipline: define on first use; consistent throughout; avoid clutter.
  • Proofs: key proofs self-contained in the paper (main text or appendix), not exiled to supplementary files.
  • Single-blind note: AEJ: Micro review is single-blind (the referee sees the author), so the manuscript need not be anonymized — but acknowledgments and self-citations should still read professionally, not promotionally.

Checklist

  • Intro opens with the economic question, not the model/estimator
  • Main result stated in words on page one, with its driving force named
  • Contribution framed as a result with explicit scope ("we do not show…")
  • Abstract leads with the result; JEL codes + keywords present
  • No significance asterisks anywhere; SEs / coverage sets where relevant
  • Notation defined at first use and consistent
  • Self-citations and acknowledgments read professionally (single-blind: no anonymization needed)

Anti-patterns

  • Leading the introduction with the model's notation or the estimator (machinery-first)
  • An abstract that lists activities ("we develop a model and run an experiment") with no result
  • Burying the proposition's content until Section 4
  • A literature survey in the introduction instead of a one-sentence delta
  • Promotional self-citation ("our influential paper") rather than neutral phrasing
  • Significance asterisks in tables

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A draft opens: "We consider a Bayesian game with type space Θ and a sender who commits to a signal π." Rewrite to the arc: "When can a better-informed seller credibly disclose product quality, and when does it pay to stay vague? We model disclosure as a commitment to a signal and show the seller-optimal policy pools high types — vagueness is profitable precisely because…". The question leads, the result is on page one, the driving force (pooling preserves credibility) is named. See ../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md.

Output format

【Intro opens with】question? [Y/N]
【Result on page one】stated in words + driving force named? [Y/N]
【Contribution】result + explicit scope limit? [Y/N]
【Abstract】leads with result; JEL + keywords? [Y/N]
【House style】no asterisks; notation consistent; self-cites professional? [Y/N]
【Next step】aejmic-replication-package (proofs + code) then aejmic-submission

Supplementary resources

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.