This is the router. It tells you which wber- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) — the rigorous empirical development-economics journal published by Oxford University Press for the World Bank (founded 1986, quarterly). WBER prizes two things at once: credible identification AND clear development-policy relevance for a World Bank / policymaker audience. A paper that nails one and ignores the other is the classic WBER misfire.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as WBER. Operational tells that you are at WBER and not a sibling: the journal requires public release of all data and code as a condition of publication (it is, by repute, the only development field journal that does this routinely); review is single-anonymized (referees blind, author names on the title page); there is a 40-page total cap including everything; and WBER welcomes short-format policy-relevant papers alongside full articles. Editors as of 2026: Eric Edmonds and Nina Pavcnik (Dartmouth) (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). Re-verify volatile specifics on the OUP WBER pages.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Question is interesting but not clearly development + policy-relevant | wber-topic-selection |
| Contribution vs. JDE / World Development / the Research Observer is fuzzy | wber-literature-positioning |
| Causal design (RCT/DiD/RD/IV) credibility is the bottleneck | wber-identification |
| A development model is needed to interpret or to run a counterfactual | wber-theory-model |
| Results may be specification-, sample-, or inference-sensitive | wber-robustness |
| Exhibits are dense; significance asterisks still present | wber-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the policy "so what"; intro/abstract do not land | wber-writing-style |
| Data + code deposit, README, DOI link, restricted-data path | wber-replication-package |
| Want to anticipate referee objections before submitting | wber-referee-strategy |
| Ready to submit via ScholarOne; need a preflight | wber-submission |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | wber-rebuttal |
wber-topic-selection — lock a development question with policy stakeswber-literature-positioning — stake the contribution; rule out sibling venueswber-identification — make the causal design crediblewber-theory-model — only if interpretation or counterfactual needs a modelwber-robustness — threat-by-threat, not an appendix dumpwber-tables-figures — exhibits a policymaker can read; no asteriskswber-writing-style — make the policy contribution land (abstract + intro last)wber-replication-package — assemble the data + code deposit with a DOIwber-referee-strategy — pre-empt the predictable objectionswber-submission — ScholarOne preflight (40-page cap, single-anon title page)wber-rebuttal — after the R&R
wber-writing-styleis a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before identification and the policy frame settle.wber-theory-modelis conditional — a clean reduced-form evaluation often needs no formal model.
WBER spans several development archetypes, and the binding constraint differs. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| program/impact evaluation (RCT or quasi-experiment) | estimand + external validity / scaling | wber-identification |
| policy-reform DiD / RD around a developing-country reform | staggered-DiD bias or RD manipulation | wber-identification |
| measurement / poverty / inequality using LSMS/DHS/admin data | data construction transparency + reproducibility | wber-replication-package → wber-robustness |
| development model + structural counterfactual | what identifies parameters; policy-invariance | wber-theory-model → wber-identification |
| short-format policy note | sharp single result + tight framing | wber-topic-selection → wber-writing-style |
A user says: "My RCT of a school-grants program in three districts estimates a clean ITT, but a referee says it reads like a project report and isn't general enough for WBER." That is two distinct WBER pushbacks — policy/general-interest framing (owned by wber-topic-selection + wber-literature-positioning) and external validity / scaling (owned by wber-identification). Route to positioning first to reframe the evaluation as evidence on a mechanism of interest to development policy, then to wber-identification to argue what the three-district LATE implies for scale-up (general-equilibrium, fiscal cost). Only once the framing and external-validity story hold do you return to exhibits and the rebuttal.
if decision_letter_arrived: -> wber-rebuttal
elif ready_to_submit: -> wber-submission
elif anticipating_referees: -> wber-referee-strategy
elif data_code_deposit: -> wber-replication-package
elif exhibits_or_significance: -> wber-tables-figures
elif results_fragile: -> wber-robustness
elif need_model_for_counterfactual: -> wber-theory-model
elif identification_shaky: -> wber-identification
elif contribution_or_fit_fuzzy: -> wber-literature-positioning / wber-topic-selection
else: -> wber-topic-selection