| name | jebo-writing-style |
| description | Use when a Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (JEBO) manuscript's prose buries the behavioral mechanism, or the abstract and introduction do not land for a pluralist behavioral audience. Shapes the mechanism-forward narrative and Elsevier-format front matter; it does not change the analysis. |
Writing Style (jebo-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The abstract describes what you did but not what agents do or why
- The introduction reaches the behavioral mechanism only on page 4
- The paper reads as a method demonstration, not a behavioral finding
- Prose toggles between psychology jargon and econ jargon without serving either audience
- You are formatting the abstract/keywords/JEL and unsure of JEBO's limits
The JEBO voice: mechanism-forward, audience-plural
JEBO readers span behavioral theorists, experimentalists, organizational economists, and evolutionary modelers. The prose must make the behavioral mechanism the protagonist and stay legible across those communities. Lead with the human behavior and its economic consequence; introduce method as the means, not the message.
A reliable intro arc for JEBO:
- The behavioral puzzle / regularity (one paragraph): a way real agents deviate from the frictionless benchmark, and why it matters for markets, organizations, or institutions.
- What we did and the headline result stated plainly and early (do not make the reader wait for the design section).
- The mechanism: name the channel (image concern, loss aversion, reciprocity, learning, norm) and why this design isolates it.
- What it adds to the specific literature (one sentence; see jebo-literature-positioning).
- Roadmap, brief.
Abstract: write the behavior, not the procedure
The abstract (≤250 words, 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) should let a reader who skips the paper still learn the behavioral lesson. State the mechanism and the direction/size of the effect, not just "we run an experiment and find significant effects." Avoid undefined abbreviations and references in the abstract.
Calibrating jargon for a plural audience
| Audience risk | Fix |
|---|
| Psychology terms unfamiliar to economists | define on first use; tie to an economic primitive (preference/belief) |
| Game-theory notation that loses experimentalists | give the intuition before the formalism |
| Field-specific lab shorthand (e.g., "MPCR", "strategy method") | expand at first mention |
| Over-claiming external validity from a lab task | bound the claim to what the design supports |
Front-matter mechanics (Elsevier / ScienceDirect; 检索于 2026-06)
- Abstract ≤250 words; 1–7 keywords; JEL classification codes included.
- References author-date (Elsevier Harvard): in-text "(Author, year)"; reference list "Author, Year. Title. Journal vol, pages." — sentence-case article titles, no quotation marks.
- Declaration of competing interest and declaration of generative-AI use per Elsevier policy.
- A structured cover letter is expected via Editorial Manager (see jebo-submission).
- Highlights / graphical abstract optional per Elsevier (待核实 — confirm current requirement).
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- An abstract that describes procedure ("we conduct three treatments") but never the behavior found
- Burying the headline behavioral result behind pages of design detail
- Writing for only one JEBO community and alienating the others
- Importing dense psychology or game-theory jargon without translation
- Significance-laden prose ("highly significant") instead of stating the mechanism and magnitude
- Inflating a single lab task into a general behavioral law
Output format
【Abstract】mechanism + effect direction/size stated? ≤250 words? [Y/N]
【Intro arc】puzzle → result-early → mechanism → contribution → roadmap [Y/N]
【Audience legibility】jargon defined across communities? [Y/N]
【Front matter】keywords(1–7) + JEL + author-date refs + AI/COI declarations [Y/N]
【Claim discipline】bounded to design? [Y/N]
【Next step】jebo-replication-package
