agentsclimarketplace

Restud writing style

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Review-of-Economic-Studies-Skills/skills/restud-writing-style

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。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill restud-writing-style

Assembled 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 polishing the prose of a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript — introduction, abstract, and overall economy of exposition — so the original contribution reads clearly and elegantly. Polishes writing; does not change results, design, or model.

SKILL.md

4.6 KB, 994 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

REStud Writing Style (restud-writing-style)

When to trigger

  • The introduction runs long and buries the contribution
  • The abstract reads as motivation rather than result
  • Prose is wordy; the reader cannot find the one clean point quickly
  • The paper is technically done but reads as a working paper, not a REStud article
  • A seminar comment was "I couldn't tell what the contribution was"

REStud house style

REStud prizes a contribution "presented rigorously and economically," and it must read well to both a theorist and an applied economist — the journal's defining balance since its 1933 founding. The writing standard follows:

  • Clarity over flourish. Plain, precise English. The reader should never reread a sentence to parse it.
  • Economy. Say it once, well. Cut sentences that restate. The elegance the journal rewards is partly a property of the prose — and the manuscript must fit the ~45-page cap, so the main text carries intuition while full proofs and bulky robustness go to the online appendix.
  • Result-forward. The reader learns what the paper finds early — in the abstract, and again in the first page — not after five pages of motivation.
  • References: Harvard author-date (REStud house style), e.g., "(Card and Krueger, 1994)" and "Card and Krueger (1994) show ..." — never numbered references. Verify the current style guide on the journal's official page before final formatting.

The introduction

A REStud introduction is not the AER five-paragraph formula by decree, but the same logic serves it well:

  1. The hook and the question — the broad economic question, stated so a non-specialist cares.
  2. What we do — the contribution: the new model, design, or fact, in one or two sentences.
  3. How — the method/design and the key idea that makes it work ("why now / why not before").
  4. What we find — the headline result, with magnitude.
  5. Why it matters / related work — the contribution located against the closest papers (hand off to restud-literature-positioning if this is thin).

Keep it tight. The editor and referees form a judgment in the first two pages.

The abstract

  • One short paragraph. State the question, the contribution (model/design/fact), the headline finding, and why it matters — in that order.
  • Result, not motivation. "We document/show/prove X" — not "X is an important and understudied question."
  • Keep it to one tight paragraph; verify the current abstract limit on the journal's official author guidelines (the ~45-page manuscript cap is stated; the abstract limit is editor discretion) before submission.

Prose discipline

  • Active voice for what you did ("we show", "we estimate"); reserve passive for processes.
  • One idea per paragraph; topic sentence first.
  • Define each term once; do not toggle synonyms for the same object.
  • Cut hedging stacks ("it may perhaps possibly suggest"); state the claim and its caveat once.
  • Equations are part of the sentence — punctuate them and gloss every symbol in words on first use.

Checklist

  • Contribution stated by the end of page 1
  • Abstract leads with result, not motivation, and is within the current limit
  • Introduction has hook / what / how / find / matters, tightly
  • No paragraph restates a prior paragraph
  • Author-date references used consistently
  • Every symbol glossed in words on first use
  • A non-specialist could state the contribution after two pages

Anti-patterns

  • An introduction that spends 3+ pages on motivation before naming the contribution
  • An abstract that sells importance instead of stating the result
  • Wordiness and redundancy that obscure an otherwise clean point
  • Numbered/footnoted reference style when the journal uses author-date
  • Synonym-toggling for the same variable, forcing the reader to re-map notation
  • Treating writing polish as a step before the result and design are stable

Output format

【CONTRIBUTION ON PAGE 1?】yes / no
【ABSTRACT】result-forward / motivation-heavy — word count vs current limit
【INTRO STRUCTURE】hook / what / how / find / matters — present?
【REFERENCE STYLE】author-date confirmed
【REDUNDANCY CUT】<lines/paragraphs removed>
【NEXT SKILL】restud-replication-package | restud-submission

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.