Jel workflow

JEL Workflow Router (jel-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you which jel- skill to use at the current stage* of a survey or review article aimed at the Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) — the American Economic Association's survey-of-record journal (founded 1969). JEL does not publish original empirical research. It publishes commissioned and peer-reviewed syntheses of bodies of economic research, book reviews, and maintains the JEL classification system. So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend"; it is scope a synthesis-worthy field → propose it → read the whole literature → impose an organizing framework → synthesize comprehensively and even-handedly → land the JEL voice → submit and revise.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JEL and the artefact as a survey, not a primary-research paper. Operational tells that you are at JEL and not a sibling: the work reviews other people's results rather than reporting your own; the natural first step is a ~10-page proposal emailed to the editor before a full draft (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准); there is no identification strategy and no replication package of your own data (you instead appraise the studies you cover); the contribution is an analytical map of a field, not a new estimate. If the user actually has original results, they want a primary-research journal (e.g. AER, QE), not JEL — say so.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on a survey/review
• A survey draft reads like an annotated bibliography and needs a spine
• Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, balance, and the proposal
• A JEL editor/referee letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Unsure the field is mature/important enough to survey for JEL	jel-topic-selection
Need to pitch the survey to the editor before writing it	jel-proposal-and-commissioning
Reading is unsystematic; citation gaps likely	jel-literature-synthesis
Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field	jel-organizing-framework
Coverage vs. selectivity, or fairness across schools, feels off	jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance
Need who-found-what tables or a conceptual figure	jel-tables-figures
Prose is dense/jargon-laden; non-specialist can't follow	jel-writing-style
Assigning JEL codes, or relating the survey to the JEL taxonomy	jel-classification-system
Negotiating scope or handling referees of a survey	jel-editor-strategy
Ready to submit/propose via the AEA portal; need a preflight	jel-submission
Received editor/referee feedback on the survey	jel-revision

Default order

1. jel-topic-selection — confirm the field is JEL-scale (mature, important, needs synthesis)
2. jel-proposal-and-commissioning — pitch a ~10-page proposal before drafting
3. jel-literature-synthesis — gather and read the literature systematically
4. jel-organizing-framework — impose the analytical spine
5. jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance — completeness, fairness, even-handed controversies
6. jel-tables-figures — summary tables and conceptual figures
7. jel-writing-style — the authoritative-yet-accessible JEL voice (abstract + intro last)
8. jel-classification-system — assign JEL codes; situate the survey in the taxonomy
9. jel-editor-strategy — scope negotiation and referee expectations
10. jel-submission — AEA portal preflight (proposal or full paper)
11. jel-revision — after the editor/referee letter

jel-writing-style is a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the organizing framework and coverage settle. The proposal comes early — much of JEL is invited or proposal-first, so jel-proposal-and-commissioning precedes the heavy reading.

Anti-patterns

• Writing the full survey before sending a proposal — JEL prefers a ~10-page sketch first (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
• Treating the survey as an annotated bibliography (no framework) — the named JEL failure mode
• Using the author's own line of work as the survey's center of gravity (self-promotion)
• Importing primary-research instincts: there is no "identification" or "replication package" — you appraise others' designs, you do not run your own
• Confusing JEL with JEP (shorter, non-technical, broad audience) or with Annual Review of Economics

Routing by survey archetype

A "survey" is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.

Archetype	Likely first bottleneck	Enter at
field-defining synthesis (broad subfield)	scope is enormous; needs a taxonomy	jel-organizing-framework
methods/tool survey (e.g. an estimator family)	accessibility to non-specialists; worked intuition	jel-writing-style
empirical-evidence stock-take (what is the consensus?)	comprehensiveness + even-handed weighing of conflicting results	jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance
emerging-area review (young, fast-moving)	is it mature enough for JEL yet?	jel-topic-selection

Minimal decision snippet

if editor_or_referee_letter:        -> jel-revision
elif ready_to_submit_or_propose:    -> jel-submission
elif codes_or_taxonomy:             -> jel-classification-system
elif prose_dense_or_inaccessible:   -> jel-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_figures:        -> jel-tables-figures
elif coverage_or_fairness_off:      -> jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance
elif reads_like_a_list:             -> jel-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic:          -> jel-literature-synthesis
elif no_proposal_yet:               -> jel-proposal-and-commissioning
else:                               -> jel-topic-selection