| name | aejmac-referee-strategy |
| description | Use when anticipating the objections referees and coeditors will raise on an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript, and calibrating desk-reject and revision odds, before submission. Pre-empts pushback and plans the review; it does not draft the post-decision response letter (use aejmac-rebuttal). |
Referee Strategy (aejmac-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- The draft is near-complete and you want to find the holes a referee will exploit
- You are gauging desk-reject risk or whether the paper is "ready"
- You need to decide which robustness checks to run before submitting vs. hold in reserve
- You want to pre-empt the predictable macro objections in the paper itself
How AEJ: Macro review works (verified 2026-06; re-confirm on the official AEA pages)
- Managed by the Editor (Ayşegül Şahin, 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) and coeditors; single-blind external peer review (the author is known to the referee; referees are anonymous to the author). Note this is single-blind, unlike some AEJs/economics venues that anonymize the author.
- Desk rejection is possible without referees; editorial decisions weigh the probability of meeting AEJ: Macro standards, breadth of topic, and interest to the AEJ: Macro audience.
- After conditional acceptance, the AEA Data Editor runs the reproducibility check before publication (see
aejmac-replication-package).
The predictable macro objections (pre-empt each in the paper)
| Objection a macro referee raises | Where it lands | Pre-emption |
|---|
| "The identifying assumption is not defended" (Cholesky ordering, sign set, exclusion) | identification | Argue the assumption economically; show robustness to alternatives (aejmac-identification) |
| "The shock is anticipated / endogenous" | identification | Show unpredictability from macro history; use narrative/high-frequency instruments |
| "This is a Great-Moderation / pre-ZLB artifact" | robustness | Sample splits across the breaks, baseline shown alongside (aejmac-robustness) |
| "Calibration is undisciplined / free parameters" | theory-model | Source every parameter; targeted + untargeted moments; sensitivity |
| "The counterfactual ignores the Lucas critique" | theory-model | Argue policy-invariance of estimated parameters |
| "SVAR and LP would disagree" | robustness | Run the cross-method check and show agreement |
| "Set-identified results reported as a point" | identification / tables | Report the identified set / median-target with a band |
| "Not broad enough for AEJ: Macro" | topic / positioning | Re-frame for general interest; name the audience (aejmac-topic-selection) |
| "Results not reproducible" | replication | Build the openICPSR package early, incl. simulation code |
Calibrating the odds
- Desk-reject risk is high when: breadth is thin (a field-specialist paper), the contribution sentence is missing, or the headline quantity is buried. Fix with
aejmac-topic-selection / aejmac-literature-positioning / aejmac-writing-style before submitting.
- R&R is likely when the question is broad and the result credible but the robustness/identification defense is incomplete — referees will ask for the checks. Pre-running the obvious ones shortens the cycle.
- Hold-in-reserve strategy: run the decisive robustness checks before submission; keep a second tier ready to deploy in the response letter rather than front-loading every table.
Suggesting referees & framing the cover
- Suggest referees who span the theory and empirical sides if the paper is a hybrid, so neither side is judged only by the other camp.
- The cover letter / framing should state the broad-interest claim and the headline quantity plainly — give the editor the breadth argument they need to send it out.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Submitting before the obvious adversarial robustness check is run
- Assuming double-blind anonymity (AEJ: Macro is single-blind)
- A paper a desk editor cannot pitch as broad-interest in one sentence
- Front-loading every conceivable robustness table, leaving nothing for the response
- Suggesting only referees from one camp for a hybrid paper
Output format
【Top 3 objections this paper invites】1) ... 2) ... 3) ...
【Pre-emption status】answered-in-paper / needs-work for each
【Desk-reject risk】low / medium / high + why
【Run-now vs. reserve checks】...
【Referee suggestions span】theory + empirical? [Y/N]
【Next step】aejmac-submission
