| name | jep-revision |
| description | Use when responding to Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) editor feedback — accessibility, balance, length, and framing — on an invited or accepted article. Plans the revision and the reply to the editorial team; it does not draft the original article or run the submission preflight. |
Revision (jep-revision)
When to trigger
- A JEP editor's letter arrived asking for changes (not an anonymous referee report)
- The edits center on accessibility, balance, framing, or length — the JEP levers
- The managing editor returned a heavily marked-up draft
- You need to plan the revision and a concise reply to the editorial team
How JEP revision differs
JEP review is editor-driven and hands-on, so revision is a conversation with the editors and managing editor, not a rebuttal to hidden referees. The edits will almost always be about how the piece communicates — is it accessible enough, balanced enough, well-framed, and the right length — rather than new identification or robustness. The right posture is responsive and collaborative: the editors are protecting the broad-audience mission, and on accessibility calls they are usually right.
Triaging the editor's letter
| Editor concern | What it usually means | The fix (skill) |
|---|
| "Still too technical / for specialists" | jargon/notation/assumed knowledge remains | jep-accessibility-and-translation |
| "Reads as advocacy / one-sided" | competing views or uncertainty underplayed | jep-balance-and-objectivity |
| "We lose the thread / what's the argument?" | structure is a survey, no through-line | jep-narrative-arc |
| "Too long / cut to length" | exhaustive coverage, not a focused essay | jep-editor-strategy (cut coverage, keep clarity) |
| "Tighten the prose / abstract" | voice dull; abstract has machinery | jep-writing-style |
| "Exhibits are dense" | research-paper figures/tables | jep-exhibits-for-general-readers |
Building the revision
- Take accessibility and balance notes as binding. These are JEP's core; argue only if a change would make the piece wrong, and then propose an accessible alternative, not a refusal.
- Cut coverage before clarity. When trimming length, remove exhaustiveness and tangents; protect the through-line, the load-bearing examples, and the few essential exhibits.
- Preserve honesty under pressure to simplify. If an edit risks overstating a finding, flag it and offer wording that stays accurate (cross-check
jep-balance-and-objectivity and jep-evidence-without-equations).
- Keep the symposium frame if applicable — don't expand into a companion piece's territory while revising.
The reply letter (to the editorial team)
- Short, point-by-point, and warm. Map each editorial comment to what you changed and where.
- Lead with agreement. Note the edits you simply made; reserve discussion for the few you handled differently, with a brief reason and an accessible alternative.
- No referee-style combativeness. This is a collaborative edit, not an adversarial rebuttal.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Replying to a hands-on editor as if rebutting an anonymous referee
- Resisting accessibility edits ("the experts need this") instead of finding an accessible version
- Cutting clarity (examples, the argument's spine) to hit a length target while keeping exhaustive coverage
- Letting a "make it punchier" edit push the claims past what the evidence supports
- A long, defensive reply letter that re-litigates settled calls
Output format
【Letter type】editor/managing-editor edits (not anonymous referees)
【Top concerns】accessibility / balance / framing / length / prose / exhibits
【Per-comment plan】comment → change → location
【Binding edits done】[accessibility + balance items]
【Length plan】cut coverage; protect through-line + key exhibits
【Honesty check】no edit overstated a finding? [Y/N]
【Reply letter】short, point-by-point, collaborative? [Y/N]
【Next step】return to jep-workflow if a new bottleneck surfaces
