本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

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).

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

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

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する