Review Process at JAE (jape-review-process)

When to trigger

• Setting expectations for how a JAE submission will be evaluated
• Understanding who decides and what referees focus on
• Planning a pipeline around JAE's submission and resubmission rules

How JAE review works

• Single-blind peer review. Official text: manuscripts are "single-blind peer reviewed by anonymous reviewers in addition to the Editor." Reviewers are anonymous; authors are not — do not anonymize the manuscript the way a double-blind journal would.
• Editor-in-Chief decides. Final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief (Barbara Rossi). Co-editors handle many papers, but the final call is the EiC's. (The full current co-editor roster is 待核实 against a live board page.)
• Rejected papers are not resubmittable unless the Editor invites it. Treat a rejection as final absent an explicit invitation.
• Cap: no more than three papers from the same author may be under review at once — stagger submissions.

What applied-econometrics referees check

Because JAE is empirical and replicable, expect reviewers to probe whether the estimand is identified on your real data; whether the method is useful in that setting; whether inference is appropriate (HAC, clustered, weak-IV-robust); whether robustness is shown (in the unlimited online appendix); and whether the work is reproducible, consistent with the mandatory Data Archive deposit. Treat replication objections as central, not administrative; a clean package pre-empts many. Do not infer process details beyond what the source map verifies.

Desk-screen failure patterns at JAE

Most early exits at this venue trace to scope and replicability, not polish. Audit against the recurring patterns:

Decision vocabulary and what each letter implies

• Reject — final; the no-resubmission-unless-invited rule means a reworked version goes elsewhere, not back to JAE.
• Reject with invitation to resubmit / major revision — the Editor sees a path; the resubmission is judged on whether each referee objection got evidence, not prose.
• Minor revision — protect the archive: any number that changes must change in the deposited code too.
• Exact decision categories and turnaround times vary; confirm against the journal's current author guidelines rather than assuming figures.

Planning the pipeline without invented statistics

Do not budget around rumored acceptance rates or review speeds — JAE does not owe you a number, and this skill will not fabricate one. Plan around the verifiable constraints instead: the three-papers-under-review cap forces staggering across coauthor teams; the single-blind model means your identity and prior work are visible context, so the paper must be consistent with your own archived past results; and the EiC's final authority means the response letter's executive summary should be written for the Editor, with referee-level detail beneath it. What is predictable is content: an applied-econometrics referee pool drawn from people who write HAC, bootstrap, and weak-IV papers themselves will test exactly those joints first.

Output format

【Model】single-blind; reviewers anonymous, authors not — prepared? [Y/N]
【Authority】final decision = Editor-in-Chief
【Desk screen】scope + replicability + 35pp + summary all clear? [Y/N]
【Pipeline】≤ 3 papers under review for this author? [Y/N]
【Resubmit】reject is final unless invited — understood? [Y/N]

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — single-blind, EiC authority, three-paper cap (and 待核实 board notes)