Referee Strategy (aejmic-referee-strategy)

When to trigger

• Before submission, to stress-test the paper against the objections experts will raise
• Deciding whether the contribution clears the desk-reject bar
• Choosing JEL codes / framing that route the paper to the right co-editor
• Unsure what the AEJ: Micro review process looks like

The AEJ: Micro process (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

• AEJ: Micro uses single-blind review via the AEA submission system: the referee sees the author, but referees are anonymous to authors. There is no anonymization burden — reputation is visible, so the paper must stand on rigor.
• There is a submission fee (AEA member $200 high-income / $100 middle / $0 low; nonmember higher — 检索于 2026-06，volatile), and JEL classification per AEA practice helps route the paper to the right co-editor and expert referees.
• Decisions run the usual ladder: desk reject → reject after review → R&R (minor/major) → accept. Theory referees verify proofs; a flawed or non-tight proof is a common reject reason.
• Re-confirm fee, timelines, and co-editor list on the official AEA AEJ: Micro page (see resources/official-source-map.md).

Objections AEJ: Micro referees actually raise — and the pre-emption

Checklist

• Listed the three most likely referee objections for this paper and mapped each to a fix
• The load-bearing assumption is named and defended before submission
• The theorem-relative delta is crisp (one sentence)
• The broad-interest message is explicit (not specialist-only)
• Every proof step a referee will check is complete
• JEL codes chosen to route to the right co-editor (single-blind: no anonymization needed)
• Decided the venue is right (not actually an AEJ: Applied paper)

Anti-patterns

• Submitting without anticipating the single most obvious expert objection
• Relying on generality to impress when the audience-fit objection is the real risk
• Leaving a checkable proof gap for a referee to find
• Mis-routing via vague JEL codes so a non-expert co-editor handles it
• Assuming anonymity protects a thin result — single-blind means the referee knows whose work it is

Worked vignette (illustrative)

Before submitting a matching paper, the author lists likely objections: (1) "rides on substitutability" → already pre-empted in aejmic-identification with a counterexample; (2) "how does it differ from the deferred-acceptance literature?" → one-sentence delta ready; (3) "is the existence proof complete?" → lemma scaffolding done. The remaining risk is audience fit, so the intro is rewritten to foreground the broad market-design message rather than the technical condition. JEL codes C78/D47 route it to a market-design co-editor.

Output format

【Top 3 likely objections】[...]  →  【Fix / owning skill】[...]
【Load-bearing assumption defended】[Y/N]
【Delta crisp】[Y/N]   【Broad-interest message explicit】[Y/N]
【Proof gaps closed】[Y/N]
【Routing】JEL codes [...] (single-blind — no anonymization)
【Venue confirmed】AEJ: Micro (not AEJ: Applied)? [Y/N]
【Next step】aejmic-submission

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/README.md — links to the shared reviewer-objection checklist (applied subset)