| name | joe-review-process |
| description | Use to understand and navigate the Journal of Econometrics (JoE) editorial process — single-anonymized review, editor screening before a minimum of two referees, the three submission tracks (Regular/Annals/Themed), Guest Associate Editors, and what referees of a methods paper look for. |
Review Process (joe-review-process)
When to trigger
- You want to know how JoE evaluates a methodological submission, end to end
- You are choosing among the Regular / Annals / Themed Issue tracks
- You are anticipating referee objections before submitting or after a revision request
- You are unsure who decides (editors, Co-Editors, Guest Associate Editors)
How JoE review works
- Single-anonymized review: referees know the authors' identities; authors do not know the referees.
- Editor screening first: editors screen submissions; suitable papers are sent to a minimum of two independent expert referees, and the editors make the final decision. Unsuitable or out-of-scope papers are desk-screened out.
- Co-Editors-in-Chief: Michael Jansson (UC Berkeley) and Aureo de Paula (UCL), supported by a set of Co-Editors. Check the live board page for the complete current roster before naming a handling editor.
The three submission tracks
- Regular Issues — standard standalone methodological papers; the default route.
- Annals Issues — focused volumes assembled around a coherent theme.
- Themed Issues — topic-based collections, often originating from conferences. Proposal organizers may serve as Guest Associate Editors who make recommendations to the Co-Editors; Themed Issues still go through the regular editorial process. If your work matches an active theme, this can be a strong, well-matched route (check the journal's Themes page for current calls).
Pick the track deliberately: a standalone advance → Regular; a contribution that fits an active call → Themed/Annals, where a Guest Associate Editor close to the topic may handle it.
What methods referees look for
- Genuine methodological contribution with mathematical rigor — proofs/asymptotics, not a relabeled method.
- Primitive, verifiable assumptions and honest asymptotics (no smuggling the conclusion).
- Monte Carlo that reports size and size-adjusted power and stresses the assumptions.
- Precise positioning against the nearest estimator/test.
- Reproducibility — runnable estimator and a
run_all pipeline.
- Scope fit — a methodological advance, not a purely applied result.
Practical reading of the process
- A clean editor screen rewards a contribution stated plainly in the abstract/intro (see
joe-contribution-framing, joe-writing-style).
- Because referees are specialists, the closest-competitor comparison and the boundary-case Monte Carlo are where reports are won or lost.
- Expect detailed, technical referee reports; a revision request usually means "make the theory/Monte Carlo airtight," handled in
joe-rebuttal.
Editor-screen packet
Before submission, assemble a four-item packet for the first editorial read:
| Packet item | What it must show | Where it appears |
|---|
| One-sentence method advance | The estimator/test/theorem is not a relabeling of an existing method | Abstract and first introduction paragraph |
| Closest-competitor contrast | Exactly which estimator, test, or asymptotic result is improved | Introduction table or paragraph |
| Formal-core promise | Identification, assumptions, rate, and inference are all proved or clearly delegated to appendices | Theory section map |
| Finite-sample credibility | Monte Carlo stresses the boundary cases where the method should matter | Simulation design summary |
If the packet cannot be filled without hedging, the paper is not ready for JoE screening. Fix the formal core before investing in formatting.
Anti-patterns
- Treating JoE like a double-anonymized journal and over-anonymizing (it is single-anonymized)
- Submitting to a Themed Issue whose scope your paper does not actually match
- Ignoring that editors screen first — a buried contribution dies at the screen
- Assuming a purely applied paper will survive referees here
- Letting a simulation-heavy paper hide the absence of a formal methodological advance
Output format
【Review model】single-anonymized; editor screen → ≥2 referees
【Track】Regular / Annals / Themed (+ Guest AE if themed)
【Handling editor】Co-Editor / Guest AE; final call by editors
【Referee hot spots】assumptions / asymptotics / size-power / positioning / reproducibility
【Editor-screen packet】advance / competitor / formal core / finite-sample credibility
【Scope check】methodological advance present? [Y/N]
【Next step】joe-submission
