Jru referee strategy

Referee Strategy (jru-referee-strategy)

When to trigger

• The draft is nearly done and you want to pre-empt the objections a JRU referee will raise
• You are choosing what to put in the main text vs. the appendix to disarm predictable pushback
• The paper makes a strong EU-vs-alternatives claim and you expect a referee from the camp it challenges
• You suspect the elicitation or the VSL identification has a soft spot a specialist will find

Who reviews for JRU, and what they hunt for

JRU's reviewer pool is specialized — decision theorists, experimental risk researchers, and VSL/insurance empiricists, under a single-blind model typical of Springer econ journals (待核实). Each subculture has a signature objection. Wargame the report by reading the paper as each of these referees would.

Referee type	Their reflex objection	Pre-empt by
Decision theorist	"The representation has no behavioral content / the reference point is fit, not fixed"	Stating one prediction the model forbids; fixing the reference point a priori (jru-theory-model)
Experimentalist	"The elicitation is not incentive-compatible / it confounds u and w"	Defending the mechanism's IC assumptions; a design that separates curvature from weighting (jru-identification)
VSL / empirical economist	"Selection into risky jobs / publication-selection bias is ignored"	Selection probes and engagement with the meta-analytic benchmark (jru-identification, jru-robustness)
EU loyalist	"A risk-averse EU agent with a pessimistic belief explains this"	Deriving a comparative static EU cannot produce; separating beliefs from preferences
Methods skeptic	"Functional form drives the result"	Showing the parameter is stable across CRRA/CARA/expo-power and EU/non-EU (jru-robustness)

How to wargame

1. Assign the paper to its two most likely referee types and write their harshest one-paragraph objection each.
2. For every objection, decide: already answered (point to the section), answerable with existing data (add an exhibit), or a genuine limitation (state it candidly).
3. Move the evidence that disarms the top objection into the main text — do not leave your best defense in an appendix the referee may skim.
4. Pre-write the limitations paragraph: the objections you cannot fully resolve, stated before the referee does.
5. Hand off to jru-submission once the predictable objections are either answered or openly conceded.

The questions a JRU report almost always asks

Regardless of referee type, certain questions recur in this journal's reports. Have an answer ready for each:

• What exactly does your model predict that expected utility does not? — the single most common decision-theory probe.
• How do you separate utility curvature from probability weighting (or risk from ambiguity)? — the measurement probe.
• Is the elicitation incentive-compatible, and under what assumptions? — the experimental probe.
• Does the headline parameter survive a different functional form? — the methods probe.
• For VSL/insurance: is the effect a preference, or a belief / selection artifact? — the empirical probe.

If any of these has no crisp answer in the main text, fix the paper before the referee writes the report.

Worked second pass: choosing what to promote

After wargaming, rank the objections by lethality and move the one analysis that defuses the most lethal objection into a numbered main-text result, not a robustness footnote. A referee who finds the decisive check in Appendix C may still write "the authors do not address X" simply because they did not reach it. Promotion is cheap insurance in a single-blind specialist process where the referee's first impression carries weight.

Checklist

• The two most likely referee types are named and their sharpest objection written out
• The decision-theorist's "no behavioral content" objection is pre-empted
• The experimentalist's incentive-compatibility / u-vs-w objection is pre-empted
• The EU-loyalist alternative explanation is addressed with a discriminating prediction
• For VSL/insurance: selection and publication-selection objections are met
• The best defense lives in the main text, not an appendix
• A candid limitations paragraph states what cannot be resolved

Suggesting and excluding reviewers

In a small specialist pool the reviewer suggestions carry weight:

• Suggest scholars who work on your exact primitive and method, including some who might disagree but would review fairly — a credible suggestion list signals you know the field.
• Exclude only genuine conflicts (advisors, recent coauthors, direct rivals with a stake) and say why briefly; a long exclusion list reads as fear of scrutiny.
• Anticipate that the editor may still pick a referee from the camp your paper challenges — write the paper to survive that draw, do not try to route around it.

Anti-patterns

• Writing only for a friendly referee and ignoring the camp the paper challenges
• Leaving the decisive robustness check in the appendix where a skimming referee misses it
• Treating "a referee might dislike non-EU" as unanswerable instead of giving EU its fair test
• Hiding a known limitation and hoping no specialist notices — they will
• Generic "reviewer 2" cynicism instead of mapping objections to this journal's actual subcultures

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A CPT-based experiment expects two referees: a decision theorist and an EU loyalist. The theorist's objection — "your reference point is chosen to fit" — is pre-empted by fixing it to the status quo a priori and showing the fit is not improved by freeing it. The loyalist's objection — "risk-averse EU with pessimism does the same" — is met by a treatment that varies probabilities at fixed outcomes, producing the inverse-S weighting that EU cannot generate. Both defenses are promoted into the main text before submission.

Output format

【Journal】Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
【Skill】jru-referee-strategy
【Verdict】defensible / patch / concede
【Likely referees】<two types>
【Top objection】<one paragraph> → answered / addable / limitation
【Best defense location】main text [Y/N]
【Limitations stated】[Y/N]
【Source status】verified / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next skill】jru-submission