aejmac-referee-strategy

Referee Strategy (aejmac-referee-strategy)

When to trigger

• The draft is near-complete and you want to find the holes a referee will exploit
• You are gauging desk-reject risk or whether the paper is "ready"
• You need to decide which robustness checks to run before submitting vs. hold in reserve
• You want to pre-empt the predictable macro objections in the paper itself

How AEJ: Macro review works (verified 2026-06; re-confirm on the official AEA pages)

• Managed by the Editor (Ayşegül Şahin, 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) and coeditors; single-blind external peer review (the author is known to the referee; referees are anonymous to the author). Note this is single-blind, unlike some AEJs/economics venues that anonymize the author.
• Desk rejection is possible without referees; editorial decisions weigh the probability of meeting AEJ: Macro standards, breadth of topic, and interest to the AEJ: Macro audience.
• After conditional acceptance, the AEA Data Editor runs the reproducibility check before publication (see aejmac-replication-package).

The predictable macro objections (pre-empt each in the paper)

| Objection a macro referee raises | Where it lands | Pre-emption |

|---|---|---|

| "The identifying assumption is not defended" (Cholesky ordering, sign set, exclusion) | identification | Argue the assumption economically; show robustness to alternatives (aejmac-identification) |

| "The shock is anticipated / endogenous" | identification | Show unpredictability from macro history; use narrative/high-frequency instruments |

| "This is a Great-Moderation / pre-ZLB artifact" | robustness | Sample splits across the breaks, baseline shown alongside (aejmac-robustness) |

| "Calibration is undisciplined / free parameters" | theory-model | Source every parameter; targeted + untargeted moments; sensitivity |

| "The counterfactual ignores the Lucas critique" | theory-model | Argue policy-invariance of estimated parameters |

| "SVAR and LP would disagree" | robustness | Run the cross-method check and show agreement |

| "Set-identified results reported as a point" | identification / tables | Report the identified set / median-target with a band |

| "Not broad enough for AEJ: Macro" | topic / positioning | Re-frame for general interest; name the audience (aejmac-topic-selection) |

| "Results not reproducible" | replication | Build the openICPSR package early, incl. simulation code |

Calibrating the odds

• Desk-reject risk is high when: breadth is thin (a field-specialist paper), the contribution sentence is missing, or the headline quantity is buried. Fix with aejmac-topic-selection / aejmac-literature-positioning / aejmac-writing-style before submitting.
• R&R is likely when the question is broad and the result credible but the robustness/identification defense is incomplete — referees will ask for the checks. Pre-running the obvious ones shortens the cycle.
• Hold-in-reserve strategy: run the decisive robustness checks before submission; keep a second tier ready to deploy in the response letter rather than front-loading every table.

Suggesting referees & framing the cover

• Suggest referees who span the theory and empirical sides if the paper is a hybrid, so neither side is judged only by the other camp.
• The cover letter / framing should state the broad-interest claim and the headline quantity plainly — give the editor the breadth argument they need to send it out.

Checklist

• [ ] Each predictable macro objection above has a one-paragraph + one-exhibit answer in the paper
• [ ] Desk-reject risk assessed (breadth, contribution sentence, headline visibility)
• [ ] Decisive robustness/identification checks run before submission
• [ ] Second-tier checks identified to hold in reserve for the response
• [ ] Referee suggestions span the relevant theory/empirical communities
• [ ] Single-blind reviewed: nothing in the paper assumes anonymity of the author

Anti-patterns

• Submitting before the obvious adversarial robustness check is run
• Assuming double-blind anonymity (AEJ: Macro is single-blind)
• A paper a desk editor cannot pitch as broad-interest in one sentence
• Front-loading every conceivable robustness table, leaving nothing for the response
• Suggesting only referees from one camp for a hybrid paper

Output format

【Top 3 objections this paper invites】1) ... 2) ... 3) ...
【Pre-emption status】answered-in-paper / needs-work for each
【Desk-reject risk】low / medium / high + why
【Run-now vs. reserve checks】...
【Referee suggestions span】theory + empirical? [Y/N]
【Next step】aejmac-submission