Jep workflow

JEP Workflow Router (jep-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you which jep- skill to use at the current stage* of an article aimed at the Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) — the open-access, non-technical synthesis journal of the American Economic Association, founded 1987. JEP is not a primary-research outlet. It rewards articles that synthesize and communicate a body of economics to a broad audience — readable by 90 percent or more of the AEA membership — avoiding formal models and heavy econometrics in the body. The product is a compelling, accessible, balanced essay, not an identification strategy or a replication package.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JEP. Operational tells that you are at JEP and not a research journal or its sibling Journal of Economic Literature (JEL): JEP is largely invited / commissioned and organized in symposia; almost all articles begin as a 2–5 page proposal emailed to [email protected] (about 10–15% of published articles originate as unsolicited proposals); the writing must be legible to non-specialists; there are recurring features ("Recommendations for Further Reading", retrospectives). Editor as of 2026: Heidi Williams; Managing Editor Timothy Taylor (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Re-verify volatile specifics on the official AEA pages.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on a JEP article or proposal
• A draft reads like a research paper or a JEL survey, not a JEP essay
• Work is ping-ponging between idea, proposal, narrative, accessibility, and balance
• A JEP editor's letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Unsure the topic is broad/timely/synthesizable for non-specialists	jep-topic-selection
Need to pitch the article or a symposium to the editors	jep-proposal-and-symposium
Structure is a literature dump, not a story/argument	jep-narrative-arc
Prose is jargon-heavy; notation everywhere; reads like a working paper	jep-accessibility-and-translation
Evidence is presented with equations/regressions a general reader can't follow	jep-evidence-without-equations
Figures/tables are dense, not self-explanatory	jep-exhibits-for-general-readers
Voice is dry/hedged; abstract and opening don't land	jep-writing-style
Reads as advocacy; competing views or uncertainty underplayed	jep-balance-and-objectivity
Need to negotiate scope/length/symposium with the editorial team	jep-editor-strategy
Ready to email the proposal/manuscript; need a preflight	jep-submission
An editor asked for revisions (accessibility/balance/length/framing)	jep-revision

Default order

1. jep-topic-selection — confirm the topic is JEP-shaped (broad, timely, synthesizable)
2. jep-proposal-and-symposium — craft the 2–5 page proposal or symposium pitch
3. jep-narrative-arc — structure the essay as an argument, not a survey
4. jep-accessibility-and-translation — strip jargon/notation without dumbing down
5. jep-evidence-without-equations — present evidence credibly with minimal math
6. jep-exhibits-for-general-readers — build self-explanatory figures/tables
7. jep-writing-style — the JEP voice; abstract and opening last
8. jep-balance-and-objectivity — fair to competing views; honest about uncertainty
9. jep-editor-strategy — scope/length/symposium negotiation with the team
10. jep-submission — email-proposal preflight (accessibility bar, disclosure, JEL)
11. jep-revision — after the editor's letter

jep-writing-style is a late polish; do not perfect sentences before the narrative arc and the balance settle.

Anti-patterns

• Writing a full unsolicited manuscript before pitching a 2–5 page proposal (low odds; editors prefer proposals)
• Treating JEP like a research journal — leading with identification, a model, or a regression table
• Confusing JEP with JEL: JEL is the long, technical survey of record; JEP is the short, non-technical, broad-audience essay
• Letting jep-exhibits-for-general-readers polish a dense figure while the argument is still a literature dump
• Advocacy framing that an editor will read as an op-ed, not a balanced synthesis

Routing by article archetype

JEP essays come in a few shapes, and the bottleneck differs. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.

Archetype	Likely first bottleneck	Enter at
"State of a field" synthesis	scope too narrow or too technical	jep-topic-selection → jep-narrative-arc
Symposium contribution (invited)	fit with the symposium frame + length	jep-editor-strategy → jep-narrative-arc
Translating one's own technical agenda	jargon/notation; over-claiming	jep-accessibility-and-translation → jep-balance-and-objectivity
Policy-relevant debate	reads as advocacy; uncertainty buried	jep-balance-and-objectivity

Worked routing example (illustrative)

A user says: "I've drafted a 9,000-word piece summarizing my structural IO research for JEP, but a colleague says it reads like my JPE paper with the proofs deleted." That is two distinct JEP problems — not yet translated for a general reader and no story for a non-specialist — owned by jep-accessibility-and-translation and jep-narrative-arc. Route there first; only once a non-IO economist can follow the argument and one memorable through-line carries it do you return to jep-writing-style and jep-exhibits-for-general-readers. And before any of that, since this is an unsolicited full draft, jep-proposal-and-symposium would convert it into the 2–5 page proposal the editors actually want.

Minimal decision snippet

if editor_letter_arrived:          -> jep-revision
elif ready_to_email:               -> jep-submission
elif reads_as_advocacy:            -> jep-balance-and-objectivity
elif exhibits_dense:               -> jep-exhibits-for-general-readers
elif math_or_jargon_heavy:         -> jep-evidence-without-equations / jep-accessibility-and-translation
elif structure_is_a_survey:        -> jep-narrative-arc
elif no_pitch_yet:                 -> jep-proposal-and-symposium
else:                              -> jep-topic-selection