Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

aejmic-referee-strategy

Use when anticipating referee objections or calibrating review expectations for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript before submission. Pre-empts the objections theory referees raise and reads the editorial process; it does not draft the response letter (see aejmic-rebuttal).

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Referee Strategy (aejmic-referee-strategy)

When to trigger

  • Before submission, to stress-test the paper against the objections experts will raise
  • Deciding whether the contribution clears the desk-reject bar
  • Choosing JEL codes / framing that route the paper to the right co-editor
  • Unsure what the AEJ: Micro review process looks like

The AEJ: Micro process (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准)

  • AEJ: Micro uses single-blind review via the AEA submission system: the referee sees the author, but referees are anonymous to authors. There is no anonymization burden — reputation is visible, so the paper must stand on rigor.
  • There is a submission fee (AEA member $200 high-income / $100 middle / $0 low; nonmember higher — 检索于 2026-06,volatile), and JEL classification per AEA practice helps route the paper to the right co-editor and expert referees.
  • Decisions run the usual ladder: desk reject → reject after review → R&R (minor/major) → accept. Theory referees verify proofs; a flawed or non-tight proof is a common reject reason.
  • Re-confirm fee, timelines, and co-editor list on the official AEA AEJ: Micro page (see resources/official-source-map.md).

Objections AEJ: Micro referees actually raise — and the pre-emption

Likely objectionPre-empt it by (skill)
"The result is a knife-edge artifact of assumption A."Name the load-bearing assumption; show necessity / a counterexample on failure (aejmic-identification)
"This is too specialized / maximal-generality for AEJ: Micro."Re-frame the broad-interest message; cut generality that hides it (aejmic-topic-selection, aejmic-theory-model)
"How does this differ from [closest result]?"State the theorem-relative delta in one sentence (aejmic-literature-positioning)
"Does it survive [a continuum / asymmetry / perturbation]?"Provide the earned extension or a clean negative result (aejmic-robustness)
"A step in the proof is asserted, not shown."Complete the lemma scaffolding; self-contained proofs (aejmic-replication-package)
"The model is overloaded; the mechanism is invisible."Reduce to the minimal environment; lead with intuition (aejmic-theory-model, aejmic-writing-style)
"This is an empirical paper, not theory."Either restore the theoretical contribution or redirect to AEJ: Applied (aejmic-topic-selection)
(Applied) "Identification / inference is shaky; asterisks used."Branch B/C identification; SEs not asterisks (aejmic-identification, aejmic-tables-figures)

Checklist

  • Listed the three most likely referee objections for this paper and mapped each to a fix
  • The load-bearing assumption is named and defended before submission
  • The theorem-relative delta is crisp (one sentence)
  • The broad-interest message is explicit (not specialist-only)
  • Every proof step a referee will check is complete
  • JEL codes chosen to route to the right co-editor (single-blind: no anonymization needed)
  • Decided the venue is right (not actually an AEJ: Applied paper)

Anti-patterns

  • Submitting without anticipating the single most obvious expert objection
  • Relying on generality to impress when the audience-fit objection is the real risk
  • Leaving a checkable proof gap for a referee to find
  • Mis-routing via vague JEL codes so a non-expert co-editor handles it
  • Assuming anonymity protects a thin result — single-blind means the referee knows whose work it is

Worked vignette (illustrative)

Before submitting a matching paper, the author lists likely objections: (1) "rides on substitutability" → already pre-empted in aejmic-identification with a counterexample; (2) "how does it differ from the deferred-acceptance literature?" → one-sentence delta ready; (3) "is the existence proof complete?" → lemma scaffolding done. The remaining risk is audience fit, so the intro is rewritten to foreground the broad market-design message rather than the technical condition. JEL codes C78/D47 route it to a market-design co-editor.

Output format

【Top 3 likely objections】[...]  →  【Fix / owning skill】[...]
【Load-bearing assumption defended】[Y/N]
【Delta crisp】[Y/N]   【Broad-interest message explicit】[Y/N]
【Proof gaps closed】[Y/N]
【Routing】JEL codes [...] (single-blind — no anonymization)
【Venue confirmed】AEJ: Micro (not AEJ: Applied)? [Y/N]
【Next step】aejmic-submission

Supplementary resources

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill