Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

aejmic-writing-style

Use when prose buries the result or the abstract/intro do not land for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript. Applies AEA house style and the theory-paper intro arc; it does not produce the result (see aejmic-theory-model) or build exhibits (see aejmic-tables-figures).

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

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.7 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Writing Style & the AEJ: Micro Intro Arc (aejmic-writing-style)

When to trigger

  • The introduction opens with machinery (the model's notation, an estimator) instead of the question
  • A reader cannot state your main result after the first page
  • The abstract describes activities ("we study…") rather than the result
  • Late-stage polish before submission (do this after the model and proofs settle)

The AEJ: Micro intro arc

A theory-first AEA journal rewards an introduction that makes a broad micro audience see the question and the result fast. The arc:

question / puzzle → model + equilibrium concept (in words) → main result (a proposition, stated in words) → what drives it / which assumption is doing the work → contribution & scope → brief roadmap.

  • Open with the economic question, not the model. A non-specialist should grasp what is being asked in the first breath.
  • State the result in words on page one — the proposition's content, not its proof. "We show that X, and this happens because Y."
  • Name the driving force early (which assumption / mechanism delivers the result) — this is the AEJ: Micro reader's payoff and ties to aejmic-identification.
  • Frame the contribution as a result with scope, including what it does not establish.
  • The literature delta belongs here in one or two sentences (full treatment in aejmic-literature-positioning), not a survey.

AEA house-style conventions

  • Abstract: short and result-bearing; lead with the result, not the activity. (Confirm the current word limit on the AEA author page — volatile; 检索于 2026-06,以官网为准.)
  • JEL codes and keywords required.
  • Statistical presentation: for any empirical/experimental content, report standard errors / confidence sets, not significance asterisks.
  • Notation discipline: define on first use; consistent throughout; avoid clutter.
  • Proofs: key proofs self-contained in the paper (main text or appendix), not exiled to supplementary files.
  • Single-blind note: AEJ: Micro review is single-blind (the referee sees the author), so the manuscript need not be anonymized — but acknowledgments and self-citations should still read professionally, not promotionally.

Checklist

  • Intro opens with the economic question, not the model/estimator
  • Main result stated in words on page one, with its driving force named
  • Contribution framed as a result with explicit scope ("we do not show…")
  • Abstract leads with the result; JEL codes + keywords present
  • No significance asterisks anywhere; SEs / coverage sets where relevant
  • Notation defined at first use and consistent
  • Self-citations and acknowledgments read professionally (single-blind: no anonymization needed)

Anti-patterns

  • Leading the introduction with the model's notation or the estimator (machinery-first)
  • An abstract that lists activities ("we develop a model and run an experiment") with no result
  • Burying the proposition's content until Section 4
  • A literature survey in the introduction instead of a one-sentence delta
  • Promotional self-citation ("our influential paper") rather than neutral phrasing
  • Significance asterisks in tables

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A draft opens: "We consider a Bayesian game with type space Θ and a sender who commits to a signal π." Rewrite to the arc: "When can a better-informed seller credibly disclose product quality, and when does it pay to stay vague? We model disclosure as a commitment to a signal and show the seller-optimal policy pools high types — vagueness is profitable precisely because…". The question leads, the result is on page one, the driving force (pooling preserves credibility) is named. See ../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md.

Output format

【Intro opens with】question? [Y/N]
【Result on page one】stated in words + driving force named? [Y/N]
【Contribution】result + explicit scope limit? [Y/N]
【Abstract】leads with result; JEL + keywords? [Y/N]
【House style】no asterisks; notation consistent; self-cites professional? [Y/N]
【Next step】aejmic-replication-package (proofs + code) then 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