본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

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).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

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

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

brycewang-stanford의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고