| name | arecon-writing-style |
| description | Use when revising an Annual Review of Economics (ARE) review for the ARE voice — authoritative, accessible to economists outside the subfield, signposted, with a strong opening, a forward-looking close, and a survey-style abstract. Polishes prose and structure; it does not design the framework (arecon-organizing-framework) or appraise evidence (arecon-evidence-standards). |
ARE Writing Style — the Review Voice (arecon-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The framework and evidence appraisal are settled and it is time to make the review read well
- An economist from an adjacent field would get lost or bored in the current draft
- The opening buries the field's importance under machinery or throat-clearing
- The abstract reads like a paper abstract ("we find…") rather than a review abstract
The ARE voice: authoritative + accessible + forward-looking
An ARE review is read by economists outside the subfield — smart, but not specialists here. The voice is a trusted, fair expert teaching the field to a colleague from another area. Four qualities define it:
- Authoritative. Confident judgments about what is known, what is contested, and how good the evidence is. The reader wants your appraisal, not neutrality-as-evasion — but authority is earned by comprehensiveness and balance, never asserted.
- Accessible. Technical machinery is explained intuition-first, notation-second; a method is motivated by the question it answers before any formalism. Jargon is defined or avoided. This is sharper at ARE than at a field journal: the defining reader is the outsider, and a review only the subfield can follow has missed ARE's mandate.
- Signposted. A substantial review needs a map: section architecture that mirrors the spine, plus periodic "where we are / where we go next" cues, so a reader never loses the thread.
- Synthesis prose, not summary prose. Sentences make papers talk to each other ("Whereas X finds…, the design in Y suggests…"), rather than marching paper-by-paper.
The review opening arc
An ARE introduction differs from a research-paper intro:
frame the field (what it studies, why it matters to economists broadly) → why a synthesis is needed now (new evidence / method shift / policy salience) → the organizing question and the spine (the map the reader will be given) → what the review concludes and the open questions (the payoff, stated up front) → roadmap (brief).
State the bottom line early. A review that withholds its conclusions to the end wastes the outsider's time and reads as indecisive.
The forward-looking close
ARE prizes the future-agenda ending more than most outlets: the empty cells of the framework become a concrete research agenda — what we do not yet know, what evidence would resolve it, which methods are ripe to apply. An ARE review that ends with "more research is needed" has wasted its most valuable section; name the specific open questions instead.
The abstract
A review abstract describes what the review does for the reader — the field, why a synthesis now, the organizing idea, the headline state-of-knowledge takeaway — not a single empirical finding. Avoid "we estimate / we find a coefficient of…"; that is a primary-paper abstract. Confirm length/format limits on the Annual Reviews author pages (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
House style notes
Annual Reviews uses its own format, including a numbered/name reference style distinct from AEA author-year (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准); the production editor applies house style at acceptance, so the delivered draft need not pre-conform, but the reference data must be complete and accurate. Keep prose crisp: length is a privilege, and every section must earn its pages by advancing the argument about the field.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- The annotated-bibliography drone: "Smith (2010) finds… Jones (2012) finds…" with no connective argument
- Opening with method/notation before the field's question and stakes
- Withholding the review's conclusions until the final section
- Notation-first exposition that locks out the cross-field reader (ARE's defining audience)
- A primary-paper abstract ("we find a coefficient of 0.3") on a review
- A limp "more research is needed" ending instead of a specific research agenda
- Neutrality-as-evasion: refusing to appraise because appraising feels risky
Output format
【Opening arc】frame → why-now → question+spine → conclusions+open-questions → roadmap? Y/N
【Bottom line early】state of knowledge stated up front? Y/N
【Accessibility】intuition-first; jargon controlled; adjacent economist can follow? Y/N
【Signposting】architecture mirrors spine; periodic cues? Y/N
【Synthesis prose】papers in dialogue, not listed? Y/N
【Forward agenda】close names concrete open questions? Y/N
【Abstract】review-style (contribution to reader), not a single estimate? Y/N
【Next step】→ arecon-editor-strategy → arecon-submission
