Skills Productivity Guiding Theoretical Paper Submission Workflow

Guiding Theoretical Paper Submission Workflow

v20260724
jet-workflow
A comprehensive workflow router designed for authors submitting highly theoretical manuscripts to the Journal of Economic Theory (JET). It guides users through the entire academic lifecycle—from initial scope assessment and theoretical positioning to drafting, revision (R&R), and final submission. It emphasizes adherence to JET's strict theory-first standards, ensuring every step reduces potential desk or referee risk.
Get Skill
365 downloads
Overview

JET Workflow Router (jet-workflow)

When to trigger

  • "I want to send a theory paper to JET — where do I start?"
  • You have a result but are unsure whether it clears JET's theory-first scope gate
  • You need the next step after identification of assumptions, drafting, or a referee report

What JET is (so the router routes correctly)

The Journal of Economic Theory is Elsevier's flagship general economic-theory venue (ISSN 0022-0531). The deciding criterion is a rigorous, original theoretical contribution — mechanism design, information economics, decision theory, game theory, matching, market design, political economy, finance and macro/monetary theory. Empirical, experimental, quantitative, or computational work is welcome only when firmly grounded in theory. House style is theorem-proof, typeset in LaTeX (Elsevier elsarticle). Review is single anonymized (single-blind) with a floor of at least two referees after an editor desk screen.

Default order

jet-topic-selection          (is this a JET-scope theoretical contribution?)
        ▼
jet-literature-positioning   (stake the result against the theory frontier)
        ▼
jet-identification-strategy  (assumptions, results, proof architecture, generality)
        ▼
jet-contribution-framing     (state the theorem and why it matters)
        ▼
jet-data-analysis            (numerical examples / computation — only if any)
        ▼
jet-tables-figures           (schematic exhibits, notation discipline)
        ▼
jet-writing-style            (elsarticle theorem-proof prose; polish)
        ▼
jet-replication-and-data-policy (Option C data statement; reproducible computation)
        ▼
jet-review-process           (what single-anonymized refereeing expects)
        ▼
jet-submission               (Editorial Manager preflight, .tex source, AI disclosure)
        ▼
jet-rebuttal                 (response letter on an R&R)

Router diagnostics

  • No theorem sentence yet -> jet-topic-selection.
  • Closest theorem unclear -> jet-literature-positioning.
  • Assumptions or proof dependencies unclear -> jet-identification-strategy.
  • Theorem is right but buried -> jet-contribution-framing.
  • Computation is doing too much work -> jet-data-analysis.
  • Figures introduce notation drift -> jet-tables-figures.
  • Source/package facts are volatile -> jet-submission and resources/official-source-map.md.

The next skill should always reduce one JET desk/referee risk: off-scope empirics, overclaimed theorem, hidden assumption, unreadable proof, notation drift, or unsupported submission fact.

Manuscript-state routing table

Manuscript state Dominant JET risk Route
Idea + model, no theorem sentence yet off-scope at the desk jet-topic-selection
Theorem proved, novelty delta fuzzy a "follows from known results" report jet-literature-positioning
Theorem + proof drafted, assumptions scattered through proofs hidden-assumption catch by a referee jet-identification-strategy
Full draft, introduction shaped like a data story theorem buried at the desk screen jet-contribution-framing, then jet-writing-style
A numerical section dominating the paper computation overshadowing the theory jet-data-analysis
Exhibits renaming model objects notation drift across figure and proof jet-tables-figures
Camera-ready PDF, source files not checked format bounce (PDF-as-source) jet-submission
R&R letter alleging a proof gap broken-lemma risk jet-rebuttal plus jet-identification-strategy

Routing vignette: a dynamic-contracts paper

The paper proves a recursive characterization of optimal long-term contracts under two-sided limited commitment, plus one computed example. The pass order actually used:

  1. Topic gate — the characterization theorem is the deliverable: pass.
  2. Positioning — closest recursive-contract theorem named; delta = commitment limited on both sides.
  3. Identification — Assumption 2's role in the contraction-mapping step made explicit; a tightness Example added for one-sided commitment.
  4. Framing — the abstract now carries the characterization sentence, not the application.
  5. Data-analysis — the computed contract path demoted to Example 2 with a pinned script.
  6. Tables-figures → writing-style → submission, in order.

One skill was consciously skipped until submission: no external research data existed, but the computed example script was still made reproducible and the eventual Option C statement said so plainly. Record deliberate skips so a later pass does not mistake them for gaps.

Loops, not a one-way pipe

  • A rebuttal that narrows a claim re-opens framing and positioning — the abstract and the delta sentence must shrink with the theorem.
  • A new counterexample found late re-enters at identification, then propagates forward through framing, exhibits, and prose.
  • A referee's "follows from known results" verdict sends the paper back to positioning before any rebuttal sentence is drafted — the reduction must be checked first.

Output format

【Where you are】<stage>
【Use next】jet-<skill>
【Why】<one line tied to JET's theory-first bar>
【Volatile facts checked】editor roster / APC / abstract cap / data statement? [Y/N]
Info
Category Productivity
Name jet-workflow
Version v20260724
Size 5.56KB
Updated At 2026-07-28
Language