Joe workflow

Journal of Econometrics Workflow Router (joe-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you which joe- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Econometrics (JoE). Default assumption unless the user says otherwise: the target is JoE — an Elsevier journal (founded 1973) for substantive econometric methodology, covering identification, estimation, testing, decision, and prediction problems in economic research, plus applications of econometric techniques. The center of gravity is a new estimator, test, identification result, or asymptotic theory, defended with proofs and Monte Carlo evidence; purely empirical work without a methodological advance is typically out of scope.

Operational tells you are at JoE and not a sibling: current official pages split portal guidance (ScienceDirect/new-submission links to Editorial Manager; JoE Google Sites and the resubmission flow still reference Editorial Express), a USD $75 nonrefundable fee for new submissions and resubmissions over one year, a 250-word abstract, single-anonymized review by a minimum of two referees after editor screening, Elsevier source-file rules plus Editorial Express resubmission PDF norms, and three tracks: Regular, Annals, and Themed Issues. Co-Editors-in-Chief: Michael Jansson (UC Berkeley) and Aureo de Paula (UCL). Re-verify volatile specifics (portal routing, editors, open themed calls) on the official pages.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?"
• A draft needs its current bottleneck diagnosed
• Work is ping-ponging between theory, simulation, illustration, and writing
• A JoE decision letter arrived and revision mode is needed

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Idea feels incremental / "is this a real methodological contribution?"	joe-topic-selection
Contribution relative to the econometrics literature is fuzzy	joe-literature-positioning
Assumptions / regularity conditions / asymptotics not nailed down	joe-identification-strategy
Monte Carlo design or empirical illustration is thin	joe-data-analysis
The "why this matters to econometrics" framing is weak	joe-contribution-framing
Theorem/Monte-Carlo tables and figures are unclear	joe-tables-figures
Prose buries the result; proofs are hard to follow	joe-writing-style
Code/data archive and data-citation norms unclear	joe-replication-and-data-policy
Need to understand single-anonymized review / track choice	joe-review-process
Ready to submit; need live portal and file preflight	joe-submission
Received a revision request; need a response strategy	joe-rebuttal

Default order

1. joe-topic-selection — confirm a genuine methodological gap
2. joe-literature-positioning — stake the contribution against the frontier
3. joe-identification-strategy — assumptions, theorems, asymptotics, proof plan
4. joe-data-analysis — Monte Carlo design + empirical illustration
5. joe-contribution-framing — articulate the general lesson for econometrics
6. joe-tables-figures — size/power tables and theory-illustrating figures
7. joe-writing-style — make proofs legible; abstract + intro last
8. joe-replication-and-data-policy — assemble code/data per Elsevier norms
9. joe-review-process — pick the track; anticipate referees
10. joe-submission — live portal preflight (incl. fee/file proof)
11. joe-rebuttal — after the revision request

joe-writing-style is a late polish. Do not rewrite the intro before the theorems and Monte Carlo are settled — the claims will change.

Stage-gate audit

Before advancing down the default order, run this self-audit. Any NO answer names the skill to invoke; do not proceed past an open gate — JoE referees read the theory first, and a gap at G2 or G3 sinks the paper regardless of how polished the later stages are.

JoE STAGE-GATE AUDIT (one line per gate; stop at the first NO)
G1 Contribution   New estimator / test / identification result / asymptotic
                  theory named in one sentence?          NO -> joe-topic-selection
G2 Frontier       Nearest three methods papers cited and beaten on stated
                  dimensions (weaker assumptions, wider class, sharper rate)?
                                                         NO -> joe-literature-positioning
G3 Theory         Every theorem has stated regularity conditions and a
                  complete proof or proof sketch?        NO -> joe-identification-strategy
G4 Evidence       Monte Carlo covers size AND power, with a DGP a referee
                  would call fair; empirical illustration runs?
                                                         NO -> joe-data-analysis
G5 Package        Code/data archive reproduces every table; Elsevier data
                  norms met?                             NO -> joe-replication-and-data-policy
G6 Preflight      250-word abstract, single-anonymized files, USD $75 fee,
                  correct portal (Editorial Manager new / Editorial Express
                  resubmission), track chosen?           NO -> joe-submission

Anti-patterns

• Do not skip joe-literature-positioning — referees judge the methodological novelty first
• Do not polish exhibits while a key regularity condition is still unproven
• Do not let joe-rebuttal draft a response before the revised manuscript exists
• Do not route a purely empirical paper here — without a methods advance it is out of scope