Elsevier requires a data-availability statement, and for microstructure papers this is where proprietary feeds create a trap. The statement must be truthful and consistent with the Internet Appendix access path: if the order-book data come from a licensed vendor that prohibits redistribution, say so and point to the access path, rather than checking "data available on request." An inconsistency between a permissive data statement and a paper that visibly uses a restricted feed is a credibility flag the editor can see at desk screen. Confirm the journal's current data-and-code policy and whether any deposit is required at submission vs. acceptance (待核实).
Anonymization fails most often on subtle tells, so do an explicit pass: (1) strip author names, affiliations, emails, and acknowledgments (including grant-number thanks that name an author's institution); (2) neutralize self-citations — "we show in Smith (2022)" becomes "as shown in prior work (citation withheld for review)"; (3) clear document metadata (author field, file path, track-changes history) from the PDF/Word file; (4) remove links to a named personal/SSRN page that identifies the authors; (5) check figure source files and embedded code comments for names. A separate, fully attributed title page carries all the author information the editor needs.
The cover letter is read by the handling editor as a triage signal. In a tight paragraph: state the microstructure contribution in one sentence with the headline magnitude; say why JFM specifically (the trading-process mechanism / specialist depth, not "we were rejected by JF"); name the data and identifying variation; and confirm the paper is not under review elsewhere. If suggesting reviewers, propose microstructure specialists with no coauthorship/advising conflict. A letter that pitches the paper as broad finance undercuts the desk-screen for a microstructure journal.
If the portal requests suggested reviewers, treat it as a real lever. Propose three to five microstructure specialists whose own work your paper engages, excluding recent coauthors, advisors/advisees, and same-institution colleagues — a conflicted suggestion is worse than none. The point is to signal which sub-field expertise the paper needs (information-based, market design, HFT), helping the editor route it well. If there are scholars who should be excluded for a genuine conflict, the portal usually allows that too; use it sparingly and only for real conflicts, since over-exclusion reads as gaming the process. None of this substitutes for the paper standing on its own at desk screen.
The cheapest rejections come from internal inconsistencies a careful pass would catch. Confirm: the title, abstract, and intro state the same headline magnitude; every liquidity measure is defined on first use and labeled identically across tables; units (bps/cents/shares/horizon) are consistent everywhere; table notes all name the clustering scheme; the data-availability statement matches the proprietary-feed access path documented in the Internet Appendix; and the reference list format matches the guide for authors (待核实). Run a final figure check that every event study shows pre-event leads. These take an hour and remove the most common avoidable desk-screen failures for a microstructure submission.
【Journal】Journal of Financial Markets (JFM)
【Skill】jfm-submission
【Blinding】anonymized for double-blind + separate title page? [Y/N]
【Files】manuscript + title page + Internet Appendix + cover letter ready? [Y/N]
【Style】abstract limit / reference style verified or 待核实
【Declarations】COI / funding / CRediT / data / AI all present? [Y/N]
【Cover letter】names microstructure contribution + why JFM? [Y/N]
【Source status】portal & policy verified or 待核实
【Next step】submit via Editorial Manager → jfm-referee-strategy for what to expect
templates/checklist.md — submission self-checktemplates/manuscript_template.md — lightweight manuscript scaffold../../resources/official-source-map.md — official URLs and volatile facts