RED Manuscript Workflow (red-workflow)
When to trigger
- Starting a paper aimed at the Review of Economic Dynamics and wanting the full path
- Unsure which RED-specific step comes next or which sibling skill to open
- Sanity-checking that nothing RED-specific (fee, code archive, single-anonymized norms) is missed
The lifecycle (RED-specific)
-
Scope check — Is the question dynamic and quantitative, studied through a dynamic model
(theoretical, computational, or empirical)? RED's scope is defined by method/lens, not subfield. →
red-topic-selection
-
Position — Place the paper in the dynamic-economics / SED literature. →
red-literature-positioning
-
Frame the contribution — What is the marginal quantitative/dynamic advance? →
red-contribution-framing
-
Identification / model logic — Assumptions and regularity conditions (theory), or causal
design (empirical). →
red-identification-strategy
-
Analysis — Calibration, moment-matching, estimation, numerical solution discipline. →
red-data-analysis
-
Exhibits — IRFs, moment tables, model-vs-data figures. →
red-tables-figures
-
Write — RED house style, author-year references, ≤250-word stand-alone abstract, 1–6 keywords. →
red-writing-style
-
Stage replication — Build the data/code archive early; RED's policy is code-first. →
red-replication-and-data-policy
-
Understand review — Desk screen, single-anonymized, ≥2 reviewers when sent out; plan around fast-review norms without assuming a guaranteed decision date. →
red-review-process
-
Submit — Pay the USD 195 fee (USD 100 all-student), submit via ScienceDirect / Editorial Manager. →
red-submission
-
Revise — Response-to-referees after an R&R; resubmissions are fee-exempt. →
red-rebuttal
Anti-patterns
- Treating RED like a generalist top-5 venue and ignoring its method-defined scope
- Forgetting the per-submission fee gates the review (no fee paid → no review)
- Leaving the replication archive or Option C data statement to the accepted stage when the policy expects code-first discipline
Router diagnostics
Ask these questions before choosing the next skill:
- Is the dynamic mechanism unclear? Use
red-topic-selection or red-contribution-framing.
- Is the model disciplined by too few moments or free parameters? Use
red-data-analysis.
- Are assumptions, existence, uniqueness, or accuracy weak? Use
red-identification-strategy.
- Are exhibits static or uninformative about dynamics? Use
red-tables-figures.
- Is the archive missing a run-all path, seeds, or runtime? Use
red-replication-and-data-policy.
The right RED route is usually the step that makes the dynamic model more auditable.
Stage-gate tracker
Keep one block per project and tick gates as they clear:
RED PIPELINE — [paper short title]
G1 scope: dynamic mechanism named; model class chosen [date/✓]
G2 positioning: lineage map written; closest model identified [ ]
G3 discipline: calibration table complete; every target sourced [ ]
G4 computation: solver chosen; accuracy check passing [ ]
G5 exhibits: mechanism figure + fit table drafted [ ]
G6 archive: run-all reproduces exhibits; readme.txt drafted [ ]
G7 manuscript: abstract ≤250w; author-year refs; 1–6 keywords [ ]
G8 submission: fee path decided; ScienceDirect upload checked [ ]
G9 review: desk cleared; reviewer-clock expectations logged [ ]
G10 revision: point-by-point reply; archive re-run and re-sent [ ]
Gates G3–G6 are where RED differs most from a generalist target: they exist because SED-community
referees re-derive calibrations and sometimes re-execute code.
Sequencing rules specific to RED
- Build the archive (G6) in parallel with the analysis, not after acceptance — the data/code policy
bites before final acceptance, and retrofitting seeds and execution order into months-old solver code
is the classic schedule killer for simulation-heavy papers.
- Do not draft the introduction before G2 and G3 exist; an intro written without a lineage map and a
calibration table tends to over-claim and gets rewritten after the moments come in.
- Budget compute as a project resource: a global-solution model whose counterfactual takes days to run
limits how many referee experiments a two-round revision can absorb.
Failure-mode router
| Observed failure |
Gate |
Skill |
| Headline number moves when the grid is refined |
G4 |
red-identification-strategy |
| Untargeted moments badly missed |
G3 |
red-data-analysis |
| Reader cannot restate the mechanism after the intro |
G1/G2 |
red-contribution-framing |
| Archive fails a clean-machine rerun |
G6 |
red-replication-and-data-policy |
Output format
[Current stage] idea / model / calibration / estimation / writing / submission / review / R&R
[Dynamic bottleneck] scope / mechanism / calibration / computation / archive / response
[Next RED skill] <red-* skill>
[Hard blocker] <fee, archive, model credibility, review risk, or none>
[Next action] <single concrete task>
Supplementary resources