Writing Style & House Conventions (ecj-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The draft is wordy, hedged, or buries the result under qualifications
• Prose explains procedure before establishing economic purpose
• A reader outside your subfield gets lost; the writing assumes too much
• This is the late polish stage — identification and model are already sound

The EJ voice: exposition is part of the contribution

EJ prose must be clear, precise, and legible to a broad international readership. EJ has long valued clear exposition alongside substance: a generalist economist should follow the argument; a specialist should find it rigorous. This is the journal's distinguishing register — at EJ, an unreadable paper underperforms its own substance, so the writing earns real weight in the decision. The writing carries an argument; every paragraph advances the economic case, and the economic intuition is stated in words before the algebra.

Register rules:

• Lead with the economics, then the method. "Higher entry costs reduce competition; we estimate this using..." not "We run a regression of price on entry cost."
• State results plainly. Replace "our findings appear to suggest a potentially meaningful relationship" with "entry costs raise prices by X%."
• Write for the generalist: define field-specific terms on first use; do not assume the reader knows your subfield's acronyms.
• Active voice for what the paper does; reserve hedging for genuine uncertainty.
• Define notation once, use it consistently; explain each equation's economic content in prose.
• Cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that...", "In this paper, we will...").

Structure conventions

• Sections: Introduction → (Model / Theory) → Data / Institutional setting → Empirical strategy → Results → Mechanisms / Robustness → (Counterfactuals) → Conclusion. Order theory before empirics when the model leads.
• Introduction does the heavy lifting (see ecj-literature-positioning): question, why a generalist cares, what is known, the gap, what you do, findings and the broad lesson.
• Conclusion states what economics learned and the portable lesson — not a summary of every table.
• Short paper (AER:Insights-style): compress hard to <6,000 words and 5 exhibits (verified 2026-06-20) — every sentence earns its place; one clean idea, no scaffolding.
• Footnotes for genuine asides, not for results that belong in the text.

House-style format

• References: author-date style, with an alphabetized then chronological reference list. Cite datasets and replication packages where relevant.
• Submit as a single PDF including appendices (verified 2026-06-20). Equations numbered and referenced as "equation (3)."
• Abstract: state the question, what you do, the headline magnitude, and the broad implication. The accepted-author guide caps the abstract at 100 words, so keep it concise.
• JEL classification codes and keywords are requested at submission via Editorial Express.
• Accepted-author metadata asks for a short title of 40 characters or fewer and keywords of 20 characters or fewer each.
• Acknowledge all sources of research funding in the manuscript (EJ requirement).

Checklist

• Each paragraph advances the economic argument; throat-clearing removed
• Results stated plainly with magnitudes, hedging reserved for real uncertainty
• Economics stated before method in every key passage
• Written for a generalist — subfield jargon defined or removed
• Every equation has a sentence of economic interpretation
• Citations are author-date and consistent; reference list complete
• Conclusion states the portable economic lesson, not a table-by-table recap
• Funding acknowledged; JEL codes and keywords prepared
• (Short paper) within the word/exhibit budget
• Abstract <=100 words; short title and keywords within accepted-author limits

Anti-patterns

• Hedged, passive prose that obscures a result the evidence actually supports
• Method-first writing that makes the reader hunt for the economics
• Writing for the subfield — unexplained jargon that a generalist cannot follow (EJ's core failure mode)
• Equations dropped in with no verbal economic interpretation
• A conclusion that recaps every table instead of stating what was learned
• Padding a short paper past its budget, or starving a full-length argument of needed exposition

Output format

【Voice】economics-first, generalist-legible, unhedged where warranted? [y/n + fixes]
【Hedging removed】list of softened claims tightened
【Jargon】defined/removed for a generalist? [y/n]
【Equations interpreted】all have prose meaning? [y/n]
【Citation style】author-date; references alphabetical/chronological; data citations included?
【Length mode】full-length / short paper (budget respected? [y/n])
【Conclusion】states portable lesson? [y/n]
【Next】ecj-referee-strategy