Jebo identification
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 jebo-identificationAssembled 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 the design that isolates a behavioral mechanism is the bottleneck for a Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (JEBO) manuscript — lab/field experiment, observational causal design, or simulation. Stress-tests experimental and observational identification to JEBO's behavioral-credibility bar; it does not write prose or build the deposit.
SKILL.md
7.3 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Identification Strategy (jebo-identification)
When to trigger
- A lab/field experiment's treatment, incentives, or comprehension are not pinned down
- An effect could be an experimenter-demand effect rather than the claimed behavioral mechanism
- An observational behavioral claim rests on OLS + controls, or TWFE on staggered timing
- A study uses deception, or runs many treatments, and the inference/ethics implications are unaddressed
- You are unsure the design isolates the behavioral mechanism, not a confound
The JEBO identification bar
JEBO judges identification through a behavioral-mechanism lens: the design must isolate the psychological or institutional channel the paper claims, not merely produce a significant difference. Because JEBO treats experimental design as a first-class identification branch alongside observational causal designs, "identification" means different things by branch — pick the branch and make the channel transparent. Inference must match the design (clustering at the level of randomization or assignment; few-cluster corrections).
Branch A: Lab / online experiment (the JEBO core)
- Incentive compatibility: payoffs must make truthful/effortful behavior the dominant strategy for the elicited object (e.g., BDM, strategy method, incentivized beliefs). State the mechanism and the stakes.
- No-deception norm: the experimental-economics convention is no deception; if you deviate, justify it and expect scrutiny — many referees treat deception as disqualifying for an incentivized study.
- Comprehension & attention checks: report comprehension quizzes, control questions, and how failures were handled (drop / re-instruct), so the effect is not confusion.
- Experimenter demand: rule out demand effects — neutral framing, between-subject where within-subject would cue the hypothesis, obfuscated objectives, or an explicit demand-treatment (e.g., Mummolo–Peterson / de Quidt-style bounds).
- Randomization & balance: show balance on observables; report the randomization procedure and unit.
- Multiple treatments: if several treatment arms, plan the comparisons and correct for multiplicity (see jebo-robustness).
- Pre-registration: pre-register the design and primary analysis (AEA RCT Registry / AsPredicted / OSF) and report deviations. (JEBO does not currently mandate it — 待核实 — but referees increasingly expect it.)
Branch B: Field experiment
- ITT vs. LATE/TOT stated; randomization unit and stratification described; spillovers and SUTVA addressed.
- Attrition examined and bounded (Lee bounds if differential); compliance documented.
- Ethical clearance / consent noted; external-validity scope stated (the field setting's generality).
Branch C: Observational behavioral empirics
- DID / event study with staggered adoption: move beyond TWFE (Callaway–Sant'Anna, Sun–Abraham, de Chaisemartin–D'Haultfœuille); show clean event-study leads; Goodman-Bacon decomposition.
- IV: strong first stage (effective F); weak-IV-robust sets (Anderson–Rubin) when needed; defend exclusion in institutions/theory + falsification.
- RDD: density/manipulation test (McCrary / Cattaneo–Jansson–Ma); local-linear, data-driven bandwidth, bias-corrected robust CIs.
- The behavioral interpretation must be argued, not assumed — the design identifies an estimate; the mechanism connecting it to a behavioral channel needs its own evidence (see jebo-theory-model).
Branch D: Agent-based / simulation
- Document the data-generating process and behavioral rules; set and report seeds; show the result is not an artifact of grid/tuning choices (see jebo-robustness).
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Estimate and audit the design, don't only describe it. Full map:
execution-with-mcp. JEBO spans behavioral/experimental and applied micro; randomization inference for experiments, DiD/IV for observational claims.
detect_design→recommend→ fit withas_handle=true→audit_result.- Observational causal claims: staggered DiD (
callaway_santanna/sun_abraham+bacon_decomposition+honest_did_from_result); IV (effective_f_test+anderson_rubin_ci); RDD (rdrobust+mccrary_test). - Experiments: randomization-based inference +
romano_wolffor many-outcome control. - Sensitivity:
oster_delta/sensemakrfor observational claims.
Report the magnitude in interpretable units; route the full battery to the appendix. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the JF execution walkthrough.
Checklist
- Branch chosen; the design-to-mechanism mapping stated in one sentence
- Experiment: incentive-compatible elicitation; no deception (or justified); comprehension checks reported
- Experimenter-demand effects ruled out or bounded
- Randomization unit, balance, and (for field) attrition/spillovers handled
- Observational: design-appropriate diagnostics; modern estimator where TWFE/2SLS would bias
- Inference clustered at the randomization/assignment level; few-cluster issue addressed
- The behavioral claim never exceeds what the design isolates
Anti-patterns
- Reporting a treatment difference as a behavioral mechanism without ruling out demand effects
- Using deception in an incentivized study without justification (referees may reject outright)
- Within-subject designs that cue the hypothesis, presented as if between-subject-clean
- TWFE on staggered treatment with no heterogeneity-bias discussion
- Calling a significant coefficient "evidence of [bias]" when a non-behavioral confound survives
- Significance asterisks standing in for clustered SEs or a pre-registered primary outcome
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A lab study claims that public visibility raises cooperation via image concerns. A referee asks whether subjects merely inferred the experimenter wanted more cooperation in the visible arm. The JEBO fix: add a demand-effect treatment (explicitly tell one cell "we expect more cooperation"), show the visibility effect (illustrative: +0.6 contributions, s.e. 0.2) is an order of magnitude larger than the pure demand response, and pre-register cooperation as the primary outcome — turning "could be demand" into a bounded, mechanism-level claim.
Output format
【Branch】lab / field / observational / simulation
【Design-to-mechanism mapping】one sentence
【Behavioral channel isolated】<image concern / loss aversion / learning / norm / ...>
【Identification evidence】[incentives+comprehension+demand-bound / balance+attrition / pre-trends+density+first-stage / DGP+seeds]
【Estimator + inference】estimator; clustering level; weak-IV/honest-DID if any
【What it does NOT identify】[...]
【Next step】jebo-theory-model