agentsclimarketplace

Rof identification strategy

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Review-of-Finance-Skills/skills/rof-identification-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。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill rof-identification-strategy

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 the credibility core of a Review of Finance (RoF) manuscript is the bottleneck — causal identification for empirical finance (DID, IV, RDD, event study, natural experiments) OR assumptions, results, and proof exposition for theoretical finance. Stress-tests the design or model to the top-three-finance-journal standard.

SKILL.md

6.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Identification & Theory Strategy (rof-identification-strategy)

When to trigger

  • The empirical core is panel regressions with controls and an undefended causal claim
  • A DID uses two-way fixed effects on staggered timing without modern estimators
  • An IV's first stage is weak or its exclusion restriction is unargued
  • The paper is theoretical and the assumptions, generality, or proof exposition are the weak link

The RoF credibility bar

RoF referees apply top-three-finance-journal standards to the inferential or logical spine. Because RoF publishes both empirical and theoretical finance, "identification" means two different things — pick the branch matching your paper.

Branch E1 — Empirical: causal design for finance

  • Natural experiments / shocks: regulatory changes, index reconstitutions, staggered law adoption. Name the identifying variation in one sentence and defend its exogeneity.
  • DID / event study: under staggered adoption, move beyond TWFE (Callaway–Sant'Anna, Sun–Abraham, de Chaisemartin–D'Haultfœuille); report a Goodman-Bacon decomposition and clean pre-trends.
  • IV: strong first stage (report F); weak-IV-robust inference when needed; defend the exclusion restriction on economic, institutional, and falsification grounds.
  • RDD: density/manipulation test, optimal bandwidth plus robustness, covariate smoothness.
  • Asset-pricing inference: correct standard errors (Newey–West, two-way clustering, Shanken for Fama–MacBeth); guard against data-snooping in factor/anomaly work; cluster at the assignment level.

Branch T1 — Theoretical: assumptions, results, proof exposition

  • Assumptions: state them economically; flag substantive vs. technical; discuss what breaks if each is relaxed.
  • Results: lead with the proposition and its economic message, not the algebra; show it is non-obvious and general enough to matter.
  • Proof exposition: keep proofs self-contained in an appendix with intuition in the body; proofs count against the 60-page cap.
  • Numerical work: report solver tolerances, convergence, and seeds (see rof-replication-and-data-policy).

Diagnostics placement grid — body vs. internet appendix

DesignMust sit in the bodyGoes to the internet appendix
Staggered DIDevent-study plot with pre-trends; heterogeneity-robust estimate next to TWFEBacon decomposition detail; alternative comparison groups
IVfirst-stage table with effective F; the exclusion argument in proseweak-IV-robust CIs; alternative instruments
RDDdensity test; the main RD plotbandwidth grid; donut; placebo cutoffs
Return event studyabnormal-return model choice; clustering by event datealternative factor models; bootstrap inference
Fama–MacBeth / sortsShanken or NW errors; microcap screen statementalternative breakpoints; subperiods

RoF's editors want the identification spine self-contained inside the 60-page envelope; the appendix carries the battery, the body carries the logic.

Worked vignette — a staggered short-sale-ban DID

Illustrative numbers. Twelve European exchanges ban short sales on financial stocks on different 2008–2012 dates. TWFE yields −1.9% on a liquidity outcome; Callaway–Sant'Anna with not-yet-treated controls yields −3.4% — TWFE was diluted by already-treated comparisons. The RoF-grade presentation: lead with the event-study figure (flat pre-trends, 95% bands, joint pre-trend test p = 0.41 reported, not just plotted); one table with both estimators; one sentence naming the identifying variation ("ban dates set by national regulators' crisis calendars, not by stock-level liquidity trends"); and the magnitude translated — 3.4% of the average bid–ask spread, roughly the trading-cost jump of moving the median bank stock one liquidity decile.

Referee pushback and the venue-specific repair

  • "Ban timing is endogenous to crisis severity" → show timing is uncorrelated with pre-ban outcome trends; add severity-bin interactions; isolate a subset where the trigger was plausibly external.
  • "The exclusion restriction is asserted, not argued" → add a falsification outcome the instrument should not move and cite the institutional document that created the variation — RoF referees reward institutional specificity over econometric hand-waving.
  • "Your proposition rides on CARA plus normality" → prove the comparative static for a wider preference class or locate numerically where it breaks; the breaking point goes in the body, the proof in the appendix (which still counts toward the 60 pages).
  • "Anomalies like this die out of sample" → pre-commit an international split (e.g., Datastream non-US sample) or a post-publication window before the referee demands one.

Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)

Estimate and audit the design, don't only describe it. Full map: execution-with-mcp. Review of Finance is the EFA flagship — corporate-causal chain for corporate papers, factor-zoo haircut for asset pricing.

  • detect_designrecommend → fit with as_handle=trueaudit_result.
  • Observational causal claims: staggered DiD (callaway_santanna / sun_abraham + bacon_decomposition + honest_did_from_result); IV (effective_f_test + anderson_rubin_ci); RDD (rdrobust + mccrary_test).
  • Experiments: randomization-based inference + romano_wolf for many-outcome control.
  • Sensitivity: oster_delta / sensemakr for observational claims.

Report the magnitude in interpretable units; route the full battery to the appendix. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the JF execution walkthrough.

Anti-patterns

  • TWFE on staggered treatment with no heterogeneity-bias discussion.
  • An anomaly "discovered" via repeated sorts with no multiple-testing or out-of-sample discipline.
  • A theory result that is true by assumption, dressed in heavy notation.
  • Over-claiming a local empirical estimate as a universal law, or a knife-edge model as general.

Output format

【Branch】empirical (E1) / theory (T1)
【Spine】identifying variation OR key assumption+result
【Diagnostics done / missing】[...]
【Inference / rigor】clustering & SE OR proof completeness
【Over-claim check】never exceeds design/model? [Y/N]
【Next step】rof-data-analysis

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.