Eer 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 eer-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 European Economic Review (EER) referee will raise — under single-anonymized review across any field — and pre-empting them before submission. Maps likely pushback to fixes; it does not draft the response letter (use eer-rebuttal after a decision).
SKILL.md
4.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Referee Strategy (eer-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- The paper is near-complete and you want to pre-empt predictable referee objections
- You are unsure who the likely referees are and what they will attack
- An editor desk-screen risk needs reducing (breadth/novelty/fit)
- Before submission, to convert anticipated objections into in-paper defenses
The EER referee reality
EER review is single-anonymized: the referee sees who the authors are. The referee is typically an expert in your exact design or field and frequently someone you cite. Two gates precede them: an editor desk-screen (out-of-scope or low-novelty papers are rejected without review, and the submission fee is non-refundable), then ≥2 external referees for an independent assessment (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The first decision is usually fast; the strategic move is to pre-empt the predictable objections in the paper itself so a referee has less to grab.
Map objection → pre-emption
| Likely objection | Pre-emption (where it lives) |
|---|---|
| "Not general interest / too narrow" | breadth hook on page one (eer-topic-selection, eer-writing-style) |
| "Contribution is incremental / already known" | named frontier delta + concurrent-work distinction (eer-literature-positioning) |
| "Identification is not credible" | design-appropriate estimator + key-assumption defense (eer-identification) |
| "TWFE is biased here" | heterogeneity-robust DiD + flat leads (eer-identification) |
| "Exclusion restriction is assumed, not defended" | theory + institutions + falsification (eer-identification) |
| "Result is fragile / spec-dependent" | coefficient-stability battery (eer-robustness) |
| "Inference ignores clustering/dependence" | correct clustering + wild bootstrap / dependence-robust SEs (eer-robustness) |
| "Model is decorative" | model delivers the tested comparative static (eer-theory-model) |
| "Can't reproduce this" | replication package ready + data statement (eer-replication-package) |
| "Exhibits unreadable / stars instead of SEs" | one headline table with SEs (eer-tables-figures) |
Strategy moves
- Pre-empt the top three objections in the paper, not just the response letter — a referee who finds the answer already there has less to demand.
- Write for the cited referee: be accurate and fair to the literature; do not dismiss the person likely refereeing you.
- Reduce desk-screen risk: make breadth and novelty unmissable in the abstract and first paragraph.
- Pre-build the robustness/identification appendix the obvious referee will ask for, and signal it in-text.
- Keep claims calibrated — overclaiming is the fastest route to a hostile report.
Checklist
- Top 3 likely objections listed, each with where it is pre-empted in the paper
- Breadth + novelty visible enough to survive the editor desk-screen
- Identification/robustness defenses already in the draft (not deferred to rebuttal)
- Literature treatment fair and accurate (referee may be a cited author)
- Claims calibrated to evidence; no overselling
- Replication materials ready to disarm a reproducibility objection
Anti-patterns
- Assuming anonymity and writing dismissively about the likely referee's own work
- Saving every defense for the rebuttal instead of pre-empting in the paper
- Submitting a marginal-fit paper and losing the non-refundable fee to a desk reject
- Overclaiming and handing the referee an easy "the evidence does not support this"
- Ignoring an obvious robustness test the field referee will certainly request
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A finance paper anticipates three objections: (1) "endogenous treatment" → adds an IV with a defended exclusion and a placebo; (2) "driven by the crisis years" → leave-out-period robustness in-text; (3) "incremental vs. paper X" → a sentence naming exactly how it relaxes X's key assumption. All three are answered in the submitted paper. When the report arrives, the referee's main asks are already addressed, shortening the R&R.
Output format
【Likely referee profile】field/design expert; possibly cited author
【Top 3 objections】each + where pre-empted in the paper
【Desk-screen risk】breadth/novelty visible up front? [Y/N]
【Pre-built defenses】identification/robustness/replication ready? [Y/N]
【Claim calibration】matched to evidence? [Y/N]
【Next step】eer-submission (preflight) → eer-rebuttal (after decision)