| name | jep-editor-strategy |
| description | Use when working with the Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) editorial team — the managing-editor-led model and the symposium structure — on scope, length, framing, and the invited/commissioned process. Handles editor interaction strategy; defer the final submission preflight to jep-submission and post-decision edits to jep-revision. |
Editor Strategy (jep-editor-strategy)
When to trigger
- An editor invited you and you need to understand the working relationship
- Your article is part of a symposium and you must fit a shared frame and length
- Scope or length is in tension with what the editors want
- You are unsure how JEP's editor-driven, hands-on process differs from a refereed journal
The JEP editorial model
JEP is run by an editorial team led by editors and a long-serving managing editor, and is largely invited / commissioned (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). As of 2026 (editor roster re-verified 2026-06-22 against the AEA "Editors of the Journal of Economic Perspectives" page) the Editor is Heidi Williams (Dartmouth); coeditors include Jeffrey Kling and Jonathan Parker (MIT); the Managing Editor is Timothy Taylor (long-tenured), with an assistant managing editor — re-confirm the roster on the official editors page before relying on names. Unlike a refereed research journal, JEP review is editor-driven and hands-on: the editors actively shape framing, accessibility, and length, often across several rounds, rather than dispatching to anonymous referees. Expect direct, substantive editorial guidance and a strong house preference for readability.
Working with the team
- Treat the proposal as the contract. The invited scope, angle, and length agreed at the proposal stage (
jep-proposal-and-symposium) define the assignment; large drifts need editor sign-off.
- Expect accessibility-first edits. The managing editor and editors push hard on plain language and structure; arrive having already done
jep-accessibility-and-translation and jep-narrative-arc.
- Negotiate scope early, not late. If the topic needs more or less room, raise it before drafting, not after. Editors would rather reshape a proposal than a finished draft.
- Respect the symposium frame. In a symposium, the editors set the unifying question and your assigned angle; stay in your lane and gesture to companion pieces rather than re-covering them.
- Use the managing editor as your accessibility coach. Timothy Taylor's long-running role is, in effect, the guardian of readability; treat marked-up plain-language edits as the house standard, not as personal style preference.
- Be responsive and concise in correspondence. A hands-on editorial team values authors who turn edits quickly and don't re-litigate settled accessibility calls.
Scope & length negotiation
- JEP has no hard public word limit, but the house norm is a focused, accessible essay — shorter and tighter than a JEL survey (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Argue scope in terms of what the broad reader needs, not what the literature contains.
- If asked to cut, cut coverage (exhaustiveness) before clarity (the through-line, examples, exhibits that carry the argument).
- If asked to broaden, add reach and stakes for non-specialists, not more specialist detail.
- Defer to editorial judgment on framing for the broad audience: the editors read JEP's readership daily and know what lands. Bring your expertise on the substance; trust them on the translation and on placement within an issue or symposium.
Checklist
Worked vignette (illustrative)
An invited author drafts a piece that has grown to JEL length because they tried to cover every paper in the field. The managing editor writes back: "This is more comprehensive than our readers need — make it an argument, not a census." The fix is not to defend the coverage but to return to jep-narrative-arc, pick the through-line, cut the exhaustive sections to a sentence each with a pointer to further reading, and protect the examples and exhibits that carry the argument. The reply to the editor is short: which sections were compressed, which were cut, and how the through-line is now visible by page two.
Anti-patterns
- Treating a JEP editor like a referee — waiting passively instead of engaging the hands-on process
- Drifting far from the agreed proposal scope without sign-off
- Sending a still-technical draft and expecting the editors to do the translation
- Re-litigating accessibility edits the editors have settled
- In a symposium, expanding to cover ground assigned to a companion article
- Padding to JEL length when the editors want a tight, broad-audience essay
- Surfacing a major scope or framing change only after the full draft is written, when it is hardest to absorb
Output format
【Process】invited/commissioned; editor-driven, hands-on (not anonymous referees)
【Editor / managing editor】confirmed on official page? [Y/N] (Williams / Taylor as of 2026-06)
【Working contract】scope / angle / length agreed: [...]
【Symposium frame (if any)】assigned angle: [...]
【Scope/length plan】cut coverage before clarity / add reach not detail
【Open tensions raised early?】scope / framing flagged before full draft? [Y/N]
【Readiness】accessibility + narrative done before editor sees draft? [Y/N]
【Next step】jep-submission
