A comprehensive guide for formatting and presenting empirical results (tables and figures) for submission to the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied). It ensures that main causal estimates are immediately legible to referees by adhering to rigorous academic standards, including presenting standard errors, confidence intervals, and specific exhibit structures like event-study plots and balance tables.
The main result is settled and must be made readable at a glance
Tables are dense, over-decimaled, or bury the headline coefficient
An event-study / RD / first-stage plot needs to carry the identification visually
You are preparing exhibits for submission and want them AEA-house-style compliant
The AEJ: Applied exhibit bar
At AEJ: Applied the main causal estimate should be findable in seconds and every exhibit should earn its place. AEA house style permits significance stars but expects standard errors in parentheses, clear notes that make each exhibit self-contained, and clean figures over chartjunk. Lead with the design's signature visual — the event-study plot, the RD scatter, or the balance table — because at this journal the picture of the identification is half the persuasion.
Exhibit
What it must show
Common failure
Main results table
headline coefficient, SE in parentheses, N, controls indicated, dependent-var mean
One table for the headline. Table 1 (or 2) should let a referee read the main causal estimate, its SE, and N without flipping pages.
Standard errors always, stars optional. AEA permits stars, but SEs in parentheses are the load-bearing object; report the dependent-variable mean so magnitudes are interpretable.
Self-contained notes. Each exhibit's note states sample, units, clustering level, controls, and what an asterisk (if used) means — a referee should not need the text to read the table.
Figures carry identification. Event-study leads, RD continuity, and balance are more convincing as figures than as prose; make them publication-clean (vector output, readable fonts, CIs shown).
Right precision. Two to three significant figures; do not report coefficients to five decimals.
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Generate exhibits from the fitted result, not by retyping numbers (the usual source of
body-vs-appendix drift). Full map: execution-with-mcp.
Tables:etable (multi-model columns) or did_summary_to_latex straight from the
result_id — one variable definition, one set of numbers, body and appendix in sync.
Figures:plot_from_result / enhanced_event_study_plot / event_study_table —
axis units and the SE/clustering note baked in.
Every note names the estimator + clustering (from the result's diagnostics) and
states the magnitude in interpretable units.
Main causal estimate readable in one table: coefficient, SE in parentheses, N, dep-var mean, controls flagged
Standard errors reported everywhere; clustering level stated in notes; stars (if used) defined
Identification figure present (event-study with CIs / RD with density / balance with joint test)
Notes make every exhibit self-contained (sample, units, clustering, controls)
Figures are clean vector output, legible, no chartjunk, consistent scales
Precision sensible (2–3 sig figs); no redundant exhibits
Anti-patterns
A main results table with 12 columns where the headline coefficient is hard to find
Reporting stars or t-stats but omitting standard errors / clustering level
Over-precision (coefficients to 5 decimals) implying false accuracy
An event-study plot with no confidence intervals or unclear reference period
An RD figure with a high-order global polynomial that manufactures a jump
Exhibit notes that force the reader back to the text to interpret the table
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A draft's Table 4 has 12 columns sweeping every control combination, and the headline coefficient is buried
in column 9 with only t-statistics shown. The AEJ: Applied fix: promote the preferred specification to a
two-panel Table 2 — Panel A the main estimate (coefficient 3.1, s.e. 0.9 in parentheses, N, dependent-var
mean 0.44), Panel B the same with the full controls — and move the sweep to the online appendix. Add Figure 1,
the event-study with confidence intervals and a clearly marked reference period, so the identification is
visible before the reader reaches the table. The result is now findable in seconds.
Referee pushback mapped to the exhibit fix
"I cannot find your main estimate." → One headline table with the coefficient, SE, N, and dep-var mean;
everything else demoted to the appendix.
"Where are the standard errors / what is the clustering?" → SEs in parentheses everywhere; clustering
level and (if used) star meaning stated in the self-contained note.
"This RD jump looks like an artifact of the polynomial." → Replace the global high-order fit with a
local-linear binned scatter plus a density panel.
Output format
【Headline exhibit】one table/figure carrying the main estimate? [Y/N]
【Inference shown】SEs in parentheses + clustering level in notes? [Y/N]; stars defined if used
【Identification figure】event-study / RD / balance present with CIs? [Y/N]
【Self-contained notes】sample/units/clustering/controls in every note? [Y/N]
【Figure quality】vector, legible, no chartjunk? [Y/N]
【Next step】aeja-writing-style
