| name | jole-writing-style |
| description | Use when polishing prose, the 100-word abstract, and the introduction for a Journal of Labor Economics (JOLE) manuscript — Chicago author-date references, the 20,000-word economy, and a general labor-economics audience. Polishes exposition; it does not change results or design. |
Writing Style (jole-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The abstract exceeds 100 words or does not state the finding
- The introduction wanders before reaching the labor question and the result
- Citations are not in Chicago author-date style, or are ordered wrong in-text
- Sentences are jargon-dense for a general labor-economics readership
JOLE house style: precise, economical, audience = labor economists
JOLE is read across labor economics, not by one subfield, so the prose must make a labor question legible to any labor economist while respecting a strict word economy. Format facts that directly shape the writing:
- 100-word abstract. This is short — there is no room for throat-clearing. Open with the question and design, state the result with a number, and close with the labor takeaway. Count the words.
- ~20,000-word soft cap, full-page table/figure = 500 words. Every paragraph and every exhibit competes for the same budget; relocate heavy detail to a bounded online appendix rather than padding the body.
- Chicago author-date references, with the JOLE convention that in-text citations are ordered chronologically, then alphabetically within the same year (a, b disambiguation), and three or more authors are cited as first author "et al." Purely alphabetical in-text ordering reads as off-template.
- Single-blind: the manuscript is not anonymized, so you may cite your own prior work naturally ("Smith and Lee (2019) show …") — no awkward third-person self-references.
The introduction arc (JOLE labor template)
- The labor question — one or two plain sentences; stakes for workers/firms/markets clear.
- Why it is hard — the identification or measurement problem that has prevented a clean answer.
- The setting & variation — the policy reform, natural experiment, register, or survey that solves it.
- The headline result — the number with units (e.g., "raises earnings by 6%"), stated early.
- Mechanism & interpretation — the labor-economic channel in a sentence.
- Contribution & external relevance — placement in the labor literature + what it teaches beyond this setting.
- Roadmap — brief.
Abstract: state the finding in ≤ 100 words
- One breath for question + design, then the result with a number, then the labor lesson.
- No "this paper studies the important issue of"; the 100-word budget will not survive it.
- A labor economist should know what you found from the abstract alone.
Sentence-level craft
- Active voice; short declaratives for key claims.
- Quantify ("lowers separations by 4 percentage points") rather than vague intensifiers ("substantially affects").
- Define notation once; do not make the reader hold five symbols.
- Hedge only where the design requires it; calibrated confidence reads as competence.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- An abstract over 100 words, or one that names the topic but never the result
- Leading the intro with method ("We use a Sun–Abraham estimator …") instead of the labor question
- Purely alphabetical in-text citations rather than chronological-then-alphabetical author-date
- Awkwardly anonymizing self-citations (unnecessary — JOLE is single-blind)
- Vague magnitude language ("significantly", "substantially") with no number
- Padding the body to look thorough instead of using a tight online appendix
Output format
【Abstract verdict】≤ 100 words, states finding+number? [Y/N] — fix: ...
【Intro arc】question / hardness / variation / result / mechanism / contribution? [Y/N each]
【Headline number in intro】present + units? [Y/N]
【External relevance stated】[Y/N]
【References】Chicago author-date, chronological-then-alpha in-text, "et al." 3+? [Y/N]
【Word economy】within ~20,000 words incl. 500/page exhibits? [Y/N]
【Next step】jole-replication-and-data-policy or jole-review-process
