| name | jeea-referee-strategy |
| description | Use when anticipating referee and co-editor objections for a Journal of the European Economic Association (JEEA) manuscript, or calibrating desk-reject risk and timeline expectations. Plans the defense and expectations; it does not draft the response letter (use jeea-rebuttal after a decision). |
Referee Strategy (jeea-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- Before submission, to stress-test the paper against the objections it will draw
- You want to gauge desk-reject risk and the realistic timeline
- A co-author asks "what will the referees attack?"
- You need to decide what to pre-empt in the paper vs. leave for the response
The JEEA review reality (source map refreshed 2026-06-20)
JEEA review is single-blind: referees know the authors. Every submission is first read by a co-editor, who may desk-reject without peer review if the fit or contribution is not strong enough for a general-interest journal; otherwise it goes to referees. The editorial team aims for a fast decision (≈8 weeks where possible). Because the co-editor is a general-interest gatekeeper (not necessarily a subfield specialist), the first hurdle is general-interest fit and a legible contribution, not subfield depth. Re-verify volatile process facts on the EEA / OUP pages.
The objections to pre-empt (by source)
| Objection | Pre-emption in the paper |
|---|
| "Not general interest enough" (desk-reject risk) | jeea-topic-selection + jeea-literature-positioning: a lesson that travels, stated up front |
| "Contribution is incremental vs. [close paper]" | name the delta vs. the frontier; defend it (jeea-literature-positioning) |
| "Identification is not credible" | design-based defense / sensitivity (jeea-identification, jeea-robustness) |
| "The model is a special case" | generalize or justify the special case (jeea-theory-model) |
| "Results look fragile" | threat-organized robustness (jeea-robustness) |
| "Inference is mis-specified" | clustering / wild-cluster / RI (jeea-robustness) |
| "Cannot tell if it replicates" | DCAS package ready for the Data Editor (jeea-replication-package) |
Strategy moves
- Win the co-editor first. The abstract and intro must make the general-interest contribution unmissable, or the paper never reaches referees.
- Pre-empt the top three objections in the paper, not in a hoped-for response letter — anticipate, don't defer.
- Single-blind means be careful with self-citation and tone — referees see who you are; avoid territorial framing against close authors who may referee.
- Pick the right co-editor fit mentally: match the paper to the breadth of a general-interest editor; if it only makes sense to a specialist, the framing is wrong.
- Calibrate timeline and outcomes: a fast first decision is the norm; plan for R&R, not instant acceptance.
Checklist
Two-gate model of a JEEA decision
Think of the decision as two gates, and target the defense at the right one:
- The co-editor gate (general interest + fit). Cleared by
jeea-topic-selection, jeea-literature-positioning, and jeea-writing-style: a legible, traveling contribution stated in the abstract and intro. Most desk rejections die here, before any referee reads the paper.
- The referee gate (execution). Cleared by
jeea-identification, jeea-theory-model, jeea-robustness, and jeea-replication-package: a credible design or disciplined model, robust results, and a verifiable replication path.
A paper strong at gate 2 but weak at gate 1 is desk-rejected; a paper strong at gate 1 but weak at gate 2 draws a hostile referee report. Diagnose which gate is at risk and route accordingly.
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A user has a clean RDD with a tiny, technical question. The execution is excellent (gate 2 is safe) but the general-interest hook is missing (gate 1 is at risk). The strategy is not more robustness — it is reframing the question so the discontinuity answers something a general reader cares about. Route to jeea-topic-selection and jeea-writing-style before submission, not to another robustness table.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a subfield-deep paper with no general-interest hook (desk-reject bait)
- Leaving the obvious identification or robustness objection for the response letter
- Territorial or dismissive framing of close authors (who may referee, under single-blind)
- Assuming referees will supply the general-interest lesson you never stated
- Treating a fast-decision target as a promise of acceptance
- Pouring effort into gate 2 when gate 1 (general-interest fit) is the actual risk
Output format
【Desk-reject risk】[low / medium / high] + the general-interest hook
【Top 3 referee objections】[...]
【Pre-emption status】[in-paper / deferred] for each
【Single-blind cautions】[self-citation / tone]
【Timeline/outcome】[fast decision; expect R&R]
【Next step】jeea-submission
