| name | restud-writing-style |
| description | Use when polishing the prose of a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript — introduction, abstract, and overall economy of exposition — so the original contribution reads clearly and elegantly. Polishes writing; does not change results, design, or model. |
REStud Writing Style (restud-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The introduction runs long and buries the contribution
- The abstract reads as motivation rather than result
- Prose is wordy; the reader cannot find the one clean point quickly
- The paper is technically done but reads as a working paper, not a REStud article
- A seminar comment was "I couldn't tell what the contribution was"
REStud house style
REStud prizes a contribution "presented rigorously and economically," and it must read well to both a theorist and an applied economist — the journal's defining balance since its 1933 founding. The writing standard follows:
- Clarity over flourish. Plain, precise English. The reader should never reread a sentence to parse it.
- Economy. Say it once, well. Cut sentences that restate. The elegance the journal rewards is partly a property of the prose — and the manuscript must fit the ~45-page cap, so the main text carries intuition while full proofs and bulky robustness go to the online appendix.
- Result-forward. The reader learns what the paper finds early — in the abstract, and again in the first page — not after five pages of motivation.
- References: Harvard author-date (REStud house style), e.g., "(Card and Krueger, 1994)" and "Card and Krueger (1994) show ..." — never numbered references. Verify the current style guide on the journal's official page before final formatting.
The introduction
A REStud introduction is not the AER five-paragraph formula by decree, but the same logic serves it well:
- The hook and the question — the broad economic question, stated so a non-specialist cares.
- What we do — the contribution: the new model, design, or fact, in one or two sentences.
- How — the method/design and the key idea that makes it work ("why now / why not before").
- What we find — the headline result, with magnitude.
- Why it matters / related work — the contribution located against the closest papers (hand off to
restud-literature-positioning if this is thin).
Keep it tight. The editor and referees form a judgment in the first two pages.
The abstract
- One short paragraph. State the question, the contribution (model/design/fact), the headline finding, and why it matters — in that order.
- Result, not motivation. "We document/show/prove X" — not "X is an important and understudied question."
- Keep it to one tight paragraph; verify the current abstract limit on the journal's official author guidelines (the ~45-page manuscript cap is stated; the abstract limit is editor discretion) before submission.
Prose discipline
- Active voice for what you did ("we show", "we estimate"); reserve passive for processes.
- One idea per paragraph; topic sentence first.
- Define each term once; do not toggle synonyms for the same object.
- Cut hedging stacks ("it may perhaps possibly suggest"); state the claim and its caveat once.
- Equations are part of the sentence — punctuate them and gloss every symbol in words on first use.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- An introduction that spends 3+ pages on motivation before naming the contribution
- An abstract that sells importance instead of stating the result
- Wordiness and redundancy that obscure an otherwise clean point
- Numbered/footnoted reference style when the journal uses author-date
- Synonym-toggling for the same variable, forcing the reader to re-map notation
- Treating writing polish as a step before the result and design are stable
Output format
【CONTRIBUTION ON PAGE 1?】yes / no
【ABSTRACT】result-forward / motivation-heavy — word count vs current limit
【INTRO STRUCTURE】hook / what / how / find / matters — present?
【REFERENCE STYLE】author-date confirmed
【REDUNDANCY CUT】<lines/paragraphs removed>
【NEXT SKILL】restud-replication-package | restud-submission
