jep-writing-style

JEP Writing Style (jep-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The argument and balance are settled and the prose needs to land
• The abstract reads like a research-paper abstract (machinery, results, no hook)
• Sentences are passive, hedged, and dense; the voice is dull
• Notation or asterisks have crept back into otherwise accessible prose

The JEP voice

JEP prose is engaging, clear, and authoritative-but-readable — the famous "no abstract math in the body" feel. It sounds like a knowledgeable economist explaining something fascinating to a smart colleague from another field: confident, plain, and never showing off. Run this after the narrative arc and balance are set; voice polish before structure is wasted.

Sentence-level rules

• Active voice and plain verbs. "We find" / "The data show" / "Firms respond" — not "It is found that responses were observed."
• Short, varied sentences. Break long compound sentences. A short sentence after a long one lands a point.
• Concrete nouns; few abstractions. "Grocery prices" beats "the price level in the relevant sector."
• No notation in the body. Symbols, equations, and asterisks belong in a note/appendix at most (mirrors jep-accessibility-and-translation).
• Earn the jargon. Define on first use or cut; never use a term to sound rigorous.
• Confidence without hype. State what is known plainly; avoid both timid over-hedging and breathless over-claiming.
• Lead paragraphs with the point. Topic sentence first, then support — readers should get the gist by skimming openers.

The abstract and opening

• Abstract: plain-language, hook-forward — what question, what we now understand, why it matters. No estimating equations, no asterisks, no method-flexing. JEP applies AEA house style at copyediting, so write for clarity, not pre-formatting (re-confirm current abstract guidance on the official page; 检索于 2026-06).
• Opening lines: the hook from jep-narrative-arc (a puzzle, a fact, a vivid example, a live debate), never "The literature on X has grown rapidly."
• First page test: a non-specialist economist should know the question, why it matters, and roughly the answer by the bottom of page one.

House-style notes (verify on the official AEA pages)

• AEA house style is applied by the copyeditor at acceptance; the submitted manuscript need not pre-conform — write for readability.
• JEL codes and an abstract are part of AEA front matter (re-confirm exact JEP requirements; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• References are part of the synthesis, not a flex — cite what carries the argument and the further-reading value, consistent with JEP's broad-audience role.

Checklist

• [ ] Active voice; plain verbs; varied, mostly short sentences
• [ ] No equations, symbols, or significance asterisks in the body
• [ ] Every term earns its place (defined on first use or cut)
• [ ] Confident but not hyped; not over-hedged
• [ ] Paragraphs lead with the point
• [ ] Abstract is plain-language and hook-forward (no machinery)
• [ ] First page conveys question + stakes + rough answer
• [ ] Front matter (abstract / JEL / keywords) checked against current AEA guidance

Anti-patterns

• A research-paper abstract ("We estimate… using… and find a coefficient of…")
• Opening with the literature or with definitions
• Passive, hedged, abstraction-heavy sentences that bury the idea
• Notation or asterisks surviving into the body "for precision"
• Showing off command of the field instead of explaining it
• Over-claiming certainty the evidence doesn't support (also a balance failure)

Output format

【Voice pass】active / plain / varied sentences? [Y/N]
【Body math/asterisks】removed? [Y/N]
【Abstract】plain-language, hook-forward, no machinery? [Y/N]
【Opening hook】[puzzle / fact / example / debate]
【First-page test】question + stakes + rough answer by p.1? [Y/N]
【Front matter】abstract / JEL / keywords per AEA guidance? [Y/N]
【Next step】jep-balance-and-objectivity