aeri-writing-style

name	aeri-writing-style
description	Use when revising an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript to lead with the result, fit the hard word cap (7,000 words minus 200 per exhibit), and write the ≤100-word abstract. Enforces the length budget and the lead-with-the-result arc; it does not change the analysis.

Writing Style — Lead With the Result, Fit the Cap (aeri-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The intro buries the headline result under setup, literature, or methods
• The draft is over the word cap and needs cutting, not just polishing
• The abstract exceeds 100 words or does not state the result
• Late-stage polish once identification, robustness, and exhibits have settled

The two hard constraints (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

• Word cap: main text ≤7,000 words with no exhibits; each exhibit subtracts 200 words; ≤5 exhibits (so ≥6,000 at the cap). The count includes body, footnotes, endnotes, and in-paper appendices; it excludes title, authors, abstract, acknowledgement footnote, references, exhibits, and the Supplemental Appendix. Over the cap = returned unreviewed.
• Abstract: ≤100 words. It must state the result, not promise it.

Treat the cap as a design constraint from the first draft, not a final trim. Every sentence competes with the insight for space.

The AER: Insights arc (lead with the result)

Unlike a long paper that builds to its result, an AER: Insights paper states the answer in the first paragraph:

1. Sentence 1–2: the question and the headline result with its magnitude and uncertainty (estimate + SE / confidence set), no asterisks.
2. Sentence 3–4: why it matters / the prior it overturns (the surprise).
3. One short paragraph: how it is identified (the design or the model's key restriction), in plain terms.
4. One sentence: the single most important robustness/scope caveat, with a pointer to the appendix.
5. Brief roadmap or none — the paper is short enough that heavy signposting wastes words.

The body then delivers exactly that arc: setup (tight), identification, result, the one or two checks, a short discussion. No second result, no survey, no extended derivations in-text.

Cutting to the cap (in priority order)

1. Cut secondary results to the Supplemental Appendix (aeri-robustness).
2. Compress the literature to one or two paragraphs (aeri-literature-positioning).
3. Move proofs/derivations and estimation detail to the appendix (aeri-theory-model).
4. Delete throat-clearing ("It is well known that…", over-signposted roadmaps).
5. Merge exhibits to reclaim 200 words each (aeri-tables-figures).
6. Tighten prose last — shorter sentences, fewer hedges, active voice.

Writing the ≤100-word abstract

• State the result with its magnitude, the setting, and the identification in one breath.
• No literature, no "we examine"; say what you found.
• Verify the count; 100 words is a hard ceiling.

Checklist

• First paragraph states the headline result with magnitude + SE/CI (no asterisks)
• Main text under 7,000 − 200×(#exhibits) words (counted per AEA scope rules)
• Abstract ≤100 words and states the result
• One idea only in-text; secondary material in the Supplemental Appendix
• Literature compressed to ≤2 paragraphs; no in-text survey
• No significance asterisks/boldface anywhere
• Roadmap minimal or absent; throat-clearing removed

Anti-patterns

• A long build-up that reveals the result only in Section 4
• Trimming prose while leaving a second result in-text (cut the result first)
• An abstract over 100 words, or one that promises rather than reports
• Counting the word budget only at the end and discovering you are 2,000 over
• AER-length signposting in a short paper

Output format

【First paragraph】states result + magnitude + SE/CI? [Y/N]
【Word count】main text = __ ; cap = 7000 − 200×__ = __ ; under? [Y/N]
【Abstract】__ words (≤100?) and states the result? [Y/N]
【Cut list to hit cap】<secondary results / lit / proofs / exhibits merged>
【No-asterisk check】[Y/N]
【Next step】aeri-replication-package