Tables & Figures (jppm-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• Tables report coefficients an academic can parse but a policy reader cannot
• The evaluation has no event-study figure showing pre-trends and dynamics
• Subgroup results for vulnerable populations are scattered across prose
• The tested label/warning/disclosure stimuli are described but never shown
• The 50-page all-inclusive cap forces you to choose which exhibits survive

Exhibits for a dual audience

JPP&M exhibits are read by two audiences at once: methods-literate reviewers who will interrogate the identification, and policy-oriented readers (including practitioners on the editorial board) who need the decision-relevant magnitude at a glance. Every exhibit should therefore carry two layers: the estimation detail (specification, SEs, clustering, N) in the table body and notes, and a decision-unit translation — percentage points, dollars, calories, share of consumers — in the headline row, figure annotation, or note. Because the 50-page limit includes tables and figures at every review stage, each exhibit must displace prose, not duplicate it; move the long battery to a web appendix.

The high-value JPP&M exhibits

A stimuli figure is uniquely load-bearing at this journal: agencies regulate formats, so reviewers want to see exactly what was tested and whether it is mandatable.

House conventions (AMA journals)

• Follow the AMA journals style shared across JM/JMR/JPP&M: numbered tables and figures, descriptive titles, notes defining every abbreviation, references and tables may be single-spaced while text is double-spaced (per the AMA submission guidelines — re-check current specifics on ama.org before formatting).
• Report effect sizes and confidence intervals; stars alone do not survive review.
• State the estimator, clustering level, and fixed effects in each table's note so the exhibit stands alone.
• Keep Ns visible (per cell / per group-time), including before/after exclusions.
• Figures must survive grayscale print and small reproduction — policy briefs will screenshot them.

Economy under the 50-page cap

• Budget exhibits first: typically 1 stimuli figure, 1 identification figure, 2–3 core tables, 1 subgroup display in the body; everything else to the web appendix.
• Merge robustness variants into a single compact multi-column table rather than serial near-duplicates.
• Never present the same estimate as both table and figure; pick the form the decision reader needs.

Checklist

• Each body exhibit carries both estimation detail and a decision-unit translation
• Stimuli shown as tested, at realistic scale
• Event-study / RDD figures display pre-trends or raw discontinuity, not just fits
• Estimator, clustering, FEs, and Ns named in every table note
• Subgroup effects displayed as a single corrected family (forest plot or panel)
• Effect sizes + CIs everywhere; no stars-only columns
• Body exhibits fit the 50-page all-inclusive budget; battery moved to web appendix

Anti-patterns

• Coefficient wall: a 12-column regression table with no translated magnitude anywhere
• Invisible stimuli: regulating formats the reader never gets to see
• Post-only plots: dynamics figures that start at the policy date
• Star tables: significance markers standing in for effect sizes and CIs
• Subgroup scatter: heterogeneity sprinkled through prose instead of one comparable display
• Cap blindness: ten body exhibits that force the text out of the 50-page envelope

Output format

【Exhibit budget】body tables/figures list vs. web-appendix list (within 50-page cap)
【Stimuli figure】tested formats shown at scale? [Y/N]
【Identification display】event-study / RDD / placebo figure with pre-period evidence? [Y/N]
【Decision-unit layer】each body exhibit translated for the policy reader? [Y/N]
【Notes discipline】estimator, clustering, Ns, abbreviations in every note? [Y/N]
【Next skill】jppm-writing-style