imfer-referee-strategy

Referee Strategy (imfer-referee-strategy)

When to trigger

• The paper is near submission and you want to stress-test it against the referees it will draw
• You must decide which robustness/identification checks to run before submitting vs. hold in reserve
• An R&R arrived and you must map referee concerns to concrete responses
• You want to understand how IMFER's double-blind, dual-audience review shapes strategy

How IMFER review works (plan around it)

IMFER uses double-blind review through Editorial Manager (anonymize the main file and self-citations) (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). The distinctive feature is the referee pool: typically one frontier international-macro researcher and readers attuned to policy relevance and IMF-program realism. The modal report attacks (1) the credibility of the cross-country / policy-surprise design, then (2) country composition and external validity, then (3) whether the policy implication is actually warranted. A clean estimate with an over-reached or under-developed policy claim is a common rejection. Plan to pre-empt the predictable objections in the paper and reserve the letter for genuinely new asks.

| Referee objection (by type) | Pre-emption to build in now |

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

| "TWFE is biased under staggered policy adoption" | heterogeneity-robust estimator + clean event-study leads already in the paper |

| "Driven by a few countries / one region" | leave-one-country-out and drop-dominant in the main paper |

| "This is the global financial cycle, not your variable" | global-cycle / US-shock control shown to leave the result intact |

| "Policy is endogenous to the crisis" | external instrument / narrative timing + selection-into-program defense |

| "Spillovers violate SUTVA across borders" | explicit interference assumption or a network/spatial design |

| "Inference ignores cross-country dependence" | Driscoll–Kraay / two-way clustering; wild-cluster for few countries |

| "Effect ≠ the policy-relevant magnitude" | estimand stated; magnitude in policy units; scope of the implication bounded |

| "The policy implication overreaches the evidence" | implication explicitly bounded to what the design supports |

| "Not reproducible / restricted data" | package built with access instructions (imfer-replication-package) |

| "External validity beyond this sample?" | estimand + scope stated; the regime where the result transfers is named |

Triaging which checks to run before vs. after

Not every conceivable check belongs in the submitted paper. Run before submission the checks a referee is near-certain to demand — the country-composition tests, the global-cycle control, the modern staggered-DID estimator, the cross-country-robust inference — because their absence reads as a hole. Hold in reserve the secondary perturbations (alternative deflators, additional subsamples, a placebo or two) that you can deploy in the response letter if asked, so the submitted paper stays readable. The judgment call is the boundary: anything an IMFER referee would consider a threat to the headline goes in now; anything that is merely a "would be nice" can wait. Putting reserve checks in an online appendix you reference is the safe middle path.

Strategy craft

1. War-game the design. For each identifying assumption, write the sentence a hostile referee would use; if you cannot answer it in one paragraph + one exhibit, fix it before submission.
2. War-game the policy claim. IMFER's distinctive risk is the policy referee: state exactly what the finding licenses and what it does not.
3. Lead with composition. Put leave-one-country-out and the global-cycle control in the main paper — these are the first things an IMFER referee checks.
4. Pre-empt, do not hide the obvious weakness; referees punish papers that ignore the elephant.
5. Make reproducibility visible so the restricted-data concern is defused before it is raised.

Checklist

• [ ] Main file and self-citations anonymized for double-blind review
• [ ] Each identifying assumption has a hostile-referee sentence and a one-paragraph+one-exhibit answer
• [ ] Country-composition checks (leave-one-out, drop-dominant) in the main paper
• [ ] Global financial cycle / common-shock confound pre-empted
• [ ] Policy-endogeneity and selection-into-program addressed
• [ ] Decisive checks placed in the main paper; reserve checks held for the letter or online appendix
• [ ] Estimand + policy magnitude + scope of the implication stated to pre-empt the policy referee
• [ ] The policy claim is bounded to what the evidence supports (no overreach)
• [ ] External validity / transfer regime named to pre-empt the guaranteed scope question
• [ ] Reproducibility package referenced so restricted-data suspicion is defused

Anti-patterns

• Ignoring the obvious design weakness and hoping no referee notices
• Leaving identifiers/self-citations that break double-blind anonymity
• Over-reaching the policy implication — the fastest way to lose the policy referee
• No country-composition checks when one economy obviously dominates
• Treating the global financial cycle as someone else's problem
• Leaving the replication package as an acceptance-time afterthought
• Writing for the academic referee only and forgetting the paper will also be read for program realism
• Dumping every reserve check into the main text so the paper becomes unreadable
• Assuming an international-macro referee will not notice mis-specified cross-country inference

Worked vignette (illustrative)

Before submitting a debt-spillover paper, the team war-games both tracks. The academic sentence: "Your event windows overlap the GFC, so you are picking up the global shock." Pre-emption: drop the GFC window and add a global-cycle control in the main paper. The policy sentence: "You claim restructurings should be faster, but your sample is all post-default — survivorship." Pre-emption: re-scope the implication to defaulting countries and add a selection-into-default note. Each objection gets one paragraph plus one exhibit in the paper, so the actual reports raise only genuinely new points.

Referee pushback mapped to the pre-emption

• "This is the global financial cycle, not your variable." → Show the global-cycle control and the dropped-crisis window in the main text before a referee asks.
• "The policy claim overreaches." → State the estimand and bound the implication to the regime the design covers.
• "Restricted data — can this be reproduced?" → Reference the built package with access instructions so the suspicion never forms.

Output format

【Journal】IMF Economic Review
【Skill】imfer-referee-strategy
【Anonymization】main file + self-cites blinded? [Y/N]
【Design objection map】per assumption: [objection → pre-emption in paper]
【Composition checks】leave-one-out / drop-dominant in main paper? [Y/N]
【Common-shock】global-cycle control shown? [Y/N]
【Policy claim】estimand + magnitude stated; implication bounded? [Y/N]
【Reproducibility visible】package referenced? [Y/N]
【Next step】imfer-submission