Ecj workflow

EJ Workflow Router (ecj-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill. It tells you which ecj- skill to use given where you are right now* in a manuscript aimed at The Economic Journal (EJ) — the Royal Economic Society's flagship general-interest journal, founded 1891 and published by Oxford University Press. EJ publishes across all fields of economics, theory and applied alike, for a broad international readership, and prizes work that is technically well-crafted, makes a substantial contribution, and is of broad interest to economists at large. Its house personality is breadth of relevance plus clear exposition — a sharp idea legible to a generalist beats a narrow result only specialists can read.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as EJ. Operational tells that you are at EJ and not a sibling: submission is through the Editorial Express portal (not ScholarOne); review is single-blind (referees are anonymous to authors; authors are not anonymized); there is an explicit short-paper option in the AER:Insights style (<6,000 words, 5 exhibits) alongside full-length articles; and accepted empirical, experimental, and numerical papers go through an EJ Data Editor reproducibility check with the replication package deposited to Zenodo or another trusted repository. Editor-in-chief as of the 2026-06-20 source refresh: Francesco Lippi; Data Editor: Damian Clarke. Re-verify volatile fees, charges, and rosters on the official OUP/RES pages.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on an EJ-targeted paper
• A draft is handed over and the current bottleneck is unclear
• Work is bouncing between modeling, empirics, and writing with no clear order
• An EJ decision letter (reject / R&R) has arrived and the user needs to switch into response mode

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Idea is narrow / not clearly of broad interest to economists at large	ecj-topic-selection
Lit review reads as a list; contribution not framed for a general audience	ecj-literature-positioning
Empirics are OLS + controls; causal claim not defended	ecj-identification
A reduced-form result has no model / mechanism behind it	ecj-theory-model
Theory/structural model present but its discipline is unclear	ecj-theory-model
Main result rests on a single specification	ecj-robustness
Tables overloaded; figures not carrying the economic story	ecj-tables-figures
Prose buries the idea; a generalist cannot follow the argument	ecj-writing-style
Accepted/near-accept; need a DCAS package for the EJ Data Editor / Zenodo	ecj-replication-package
Want to anticipate the breadth/identification objections a referee will raise	ecj-referee-strategy
Ready to submit via Editorial Express; need a single-blind preflight	ecj-submission
Received an R&R; need the response-letter strategy	ecj-rebuttal

Default order

1. ecj-topic-selection — lock a question of broad interest, and decide full-length vs. short paper
2. ecj-literature-positioning — situate the contribution for a general-interest readership
3. ecj-identification — make the causal/empirical claim credible
4. ecj-theory-model — the model or mechanism that gives the result its economic meaning
5. ecj-robustness — kill the alternative explanations a referee will float
6. ecj-tables-figures — finalize exhibits so each carries economic content
7. ecj-writing-style — make the idea land for a generalist (intro/abstract last)
8. ecj-referee-strategy — pre-mortem the report you expect, patch holes
9. ecj-replication-package — assemble data/code to DCAS standard for the EJ Data Editor
10. ecj-submission — Editorial Express preflight (single-blind, JEL, short-paper option)
11. ecj-rebuttal — after the R&R lands

ecj-writing-style is a late polish stage; do not rewrite the intro before identification and the model settle. At EJ, exposition is part of the contribution — budget real time for it, but after the substance is sound.

Decision heuristics

• "I have a clean causal effect but only specialists would care" → ecj-topic-selection (broaden the framing or rescope)
• "My result is sharp and self-contained but short" → ecj-topic-selection then ecj-submission (consider the short-paper route)
• "My intro cites everyone but never says what economics learns" → ecj-literature-positioning
• "DID uses TWFE with staggered timing and I haven't addressed heterogeneity bias" → ecj-identification
• "All my evidence is one regression" → ecj-robustness
• "A non-specialist reader gets lost by page 3" → ecj-writing-style
• "Submitting tomorrow" → ecj-submission
• "Got referee reports" → ecj-rebuttal

Question ladder

Answer the questions in order; the first "no" routes you. Note the ladder never says "anonymize" — EJ review is single-blind and author identity is expected.

ecj-workflow question ladder (EJ, single-blind)
Q1  breadth       would an economist outside your field finish
                  this paper?                                        no → ecj-topic-selection
Q1b length        result sharp but compact? consider the short
                  paper (<6,000 words, 5 exhibits,
                  AER:Insights style)                                yes → flag for ecj-submission
Q2  positioning   does the intro say what economics at large
                  learns, not just who wrote before?                 no → ecj-literature-positioning
Q3  causal claim  is the empirical claim defended beyond
                  OLS + controls?                                    no → ecj-identification
Q4  mechanism     is there a model or mechanism disciplining
                  the reduced form?                                  no → ecj-theory-model
Q5  robustness    does the result survive off a single
                  specification?                                     no → ecj-robustness
Q6  exhibits      does each table and figure carry the
                  economic story on its own?                         no → ecj-tables-figures
Q7  exposition    can a generalist still follow the argument
                  by page 3?                                         no → ecj-writing-style
Q8  pre-mortem    have the expected referee objections been
                  patched in the draft?                              no → ecj-referee-strategy
Q9  package       DCAS-standard replication set ready for the
                  EJ Data Editor (Zenodo or another trusted
                  repository)?                                       no → ecj-replication-package
ALL YES → Editorial Express preflight (JEL codes, paper type) → ecj-submission
R&R arrives → ecj-rebuttal

Differences vs. JEEA / EER / top-5 stacks

EJ is a leading general-interest journal just below the top-5, with a distinct taste:

• EJ: the RES flagship, long history, breadth of relevance + clear exposition; theory and applied both core; an explicit short-paper option. A generalist must be able to read it.
• JEEA (EEA): European general-interest flagship; comparably broad, sometimes more selective/methodological in tilt.
• EER: European general-interest, often more field-specialized in practice; faster turnaround perception.
• Top-5 (AER/QJE/JPE/Econometrica/REStud): a notch higher on novelty/importance; EJ welcomes substantial, broadly interesting work that may not clear that bar but is excellent and general.

If the paper is purely methodological/econometric, The Econometrics Journal (also RES) may fit better. If it is a narrow field contribution a generalist would skip, reconsider framing in ecj-topic-selection before targeting EJ.

Anti-patterns

• Do not target EJ with a narrow result no generalist would finish — breadth of interest is a stated bar
• Do not waste effort anonymizing the manuscript — EJ review is single-blind, so author identity is expected
• Do not let ecj-tables-figures polish exhibits while the identification is still contested
• Do not let ecj-rebuttal draft a response letter before the manuscript itself has been revised
• Do not defer reproducible code to post-accept; the EJ Data Editor verifies the package before final publication