Restat referee strategy
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 restat-referee-strategyAssembled 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 anticipating the objections a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) referee will raise for a given design, and pre-empting them in the manuscript before submission. Maps threats to defenses; it does not draft the post-decision response letter (that is restat-rebuttal).
SKILL.md
5.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Referee Strategy (restat-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- The design is settled and you want to pre-empt the obvious referee objections
- You need to decide which robustness checks belong in the paper vs the online appendix
- You want to write the intro/robustness so a referee's first question is already answered
- Before submission, to stress-test the manuscript against a REStat referee's mindset
The REStat referee mindset
REStat referees are applied economists who attack identification and measurement first. They ask: Is the design actually clean? Is everything measured well enough to support the claim? Would the result survive the specification I would run? Does the conclusion exceed the evidence? Because REStat publishes across many applied fields, expect a referee who knows your subfield's data quirks intimately. The winning manuscript answers the top objection inside the paper — one paragraph plus one exhibit — before the referee can raise it.
Threat → pre-emption map by design
| Design | The objection a REStat referee raises first | Pre-empt with |
|---|---|---|
| DID (staggered) | "TWFE is biased with heterogeneous timing" | Het-robust estimator (CS / Sun–Abraham) + flat event-study + Bacon decomp |
| DID (any) | "Pre-trends / parallel trends fails" | Pre-trend tests + honest-DID bounds (Rambachan–Roth) |
| RD | "The running variable is manipulated" | Density test (CJM) + covariate smoothness + bandwidth sensitivity |
| IV | "Exclusion restriction is violated / instrument is weak" | Institutional + falsification defense of exclusion; effective-F; AR weak-IV sets |
| Shift-share | "Shares/shocks are endogenous" | GPSS share-exogeneity or BHJ shock-exogeneity argument + implied estimates |
| Any | "Your key variable is measured with error" | Validation sample / attenuation correction / bounds (REStat-signature) |
| Any | "Inference ignores clustering / few clusters / many tests" | Right clustering + wild-cluster bootstrap + MHT correction |
| Any | "The conclusion overreaches the estimate" | State the estimand and scope; bound external-validity claims |
Strategy moves
- Rank the threats. List the 4–6 objections this design invites, hardest first.
- Answer the top one in the main text — one paragraph + one exhibit — so the referee sees it pre-empted.
- Budget the rest between main text and online appendix; signal in the text where the appendix answers a concern.
- Pre-write the hard concession. Where the design is genuinely limited, state the limit and bound it — this buys referee trust.
- Match exhibits to threats (hand to
restat-robustnessfor the suite,restat-tables-figuresfor presentation).
Checklist
- Top 4–6 objections for THIS design listed, hardest first
- The single hardest objection is answered in the main text (paragraph + exhibit)
- Measurement-error objection explicitly addressed (REStat referees raise it)
- Inference objection pre-empted (clustering / few-cluster / MHT)
- Scope/external-validity bounded so "overreach" cannot be the easy rejection
- Remaining checks budgeted between main text and online appendix with signposts
Anti-patterns
- Hiding the obvious objection and hoping the referee misses it (they will not)
- Burying the answer to the top objection in a footnote or deep appendix
- A defensive tone that argues instead of demonstrating with an exhibit
- Ignoring measurement quality because the identification looks clean
- Overclaiming generality, handing the referee the easiest possible rejection
Worked vignette: pre-empting the measurement objection (illustrative)
A trade paper uses a shift-share instrument and the author is braced for the usual exogeneity questions. But the first objection a REStat referee raises is about measurement: the industry-share weights are built from a base-year census the referee believes is mismeasured for small sectors. Anticipating this, the author adds, in the main text, a one-paragraph defense plus one exhibit — re-estimating with shares from an independent survey and showing the estimate barely moves — before any referee sees the paper. The exogeneity question (shares vs shocks, BHJ) is handled in a second paragraph. By pre-empting the measurement objection, not just the identification one, the author removes the easiest path to a critical report — the REStat-specific move siblings often miss.
Output format
【Design】[DID / RD / IV / shift-share / measurement]
【Top objections (ranked)】1:[...] 2:[...] 3:[...] (4–6)
【Hardest answered in main text?】paragraph + exhibit? [Y/N]
【Measurement objection addressed?】[Y/N]
【Inference objection pre-empted?】[Y/N]
【Scope bounded?】external-validity claim limited? [Y/N]
【Main vs appendix budget】main: [...]; appendix: [...]
【Next step】restat-submission