jet-workflow

JET Workflow Router (jet-workflow)

When to trigger

• "I want to send a theory paper to JET — where do I start?"
• You have a result but are unsure whether it clears JET's theory-first scope gate
• You need the next step after identification of assumptions, drafting, or a referee report

What JET is (so the router routes correctly)

The Journal of Economic Theory is Elsevier's flagship general economic-theory venue (ISSN

0022-0531). The deciding criterion is a rigorous, original theoretical contribution —

mechanism design, information economics, decision theory, game theory, matching, market design,

political economy, finance and macro/monetary theory. Empirical, experimental, quantitative, or

computational work is welcome only when firmly grounded in theory. House style is

theorem-proof, typeset in LaTeX (Elsevier elsarticle). Review is **single anonymized

(single-blind) with a floor of at least two referees** after an editor desk screen.

Default order

jet-topic-selection          (is this a JET-scope theoretical contribution?)
        ▼
jet-literature-positioning   (stake the result against the theory frontier)
        ▼
jet-identification-strategy  (assumptions, results, proof architecture, generality)
        ▼
jet-contribution-framing     (state the theorem and why it matters)
        ▼
jet-data-analysis            (numerical examples / computation — only if any)
        ▼
jet-tables-figures           (schematic exhibits, notation discipline)
        ▼
jet-writing-style            (elsarticle theorem-proof prose; polish)
        ▼
jet-replication-and-data-policy (Option C data statement; reproducible computation)
        ▼
jet-review-process           (what single-anonymized refereeing expects)
        ▼
jet-submission               (Editorial Manager preflight, .tex source, AI disclosure)
        ▼
jet-rebuttal                 (response letter on an R&R)

Router diagnostics

• No theorem sentence yet -> jet-topic-selection.
• Closest theorem unclear -> jet-literature-positioning.
• Assumptions or proof dependencies unclear -> jet-identification-strategy.
• Theorem is right but buried -> jet-contribution-framing.
• Computation is doing too much work -> jet-data-analysis.
• Figures introduce notation drift -> jet-tables-figures.
• Source/package facts are volatile -> jet-submission and resources/official-source-map.md.

The next skill should always reduce one JET desk/referee risk: off-scope empirics, overclaimed theorem,

hidden assumption, unreadable proof, notation drift, or unsupported submission fact.

Manuscript-state routing table

| Manuscript state | Dominant JET risk | Route |

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

| Idea + model, no theorem sentence yet | off-scope at the desk | jet-topic-selection |

| Theorem proved, novelty delta fuzzy | a "follows from known results" report | jet-literature-positioning |

| Theorem + proof drafted, assumptions scattered through proofs | hidden-assumption catch by a referee | jet-identification-strategy |

| Full draft, introduction shaped like a data story | theorem buried at the desk screen | jet-contribution-framing, then jet-writing-style |

| A numerical section dominating the paper | computation overshadowing the theory | jet-data-analysis |

| Exhibits renaming model objects | notation drift across figure and proof | jet-tables-figures |

| Camera-ready PDF, source files not checked | format bounce (PDF-as-source) | jet-submission |

| R&R letter alleging a proof gap | broken-lemma risk | jet-rebuttal plus jet-identification-strategy |

Routing vignette: a dynamic-contracts paper

The paper proves a recursive characterization of optimal long-term contracts under two-sided

limited commitment, plus one computed example. The pass order actually used:

1. Topic gate — the characterization theorem is the deliverable: pass.
2. Positioning — closest recursive-contract theorem named; delta = commitment limited on both

sides.

1. Identification — Assumption 2's role in the contraction-mapping step made explicit; a tightness

Example added for one-sided commitment.

1. Framing — the abstract now carries the characterization sentence, not the application.
2. Data-analysis — the computed contract path demoted to Example 2 with a pinned script.
3. Tables-figures → writing-style → submission, in order.

One skill was consciously skipped until submission: no external research data existed, but the computed

example script was still made reproducible and the eventual Option C statement said so plainly. Record

deliberate skips so a later pass does not mistake them for gaps.

Loops, not a one-way pipe

• A rebuttal that narrows a claim re-opens framing and positioning — the abstract and the

delta sentence must shrink with the theorem.

• A new counterexample found late re-enters at identification, then propagates forward through

framing, exhibits, and prose.

• A referee's "follows from known results" verdict sends the paper back to positioning before any

rebuttal sentence is drafted — the reduction must be checked first.

Output format

【Where you are】<stage>
【Use next】jet-<skill>
【Why】<one line tied to JET's theory-first bar>
【Volatile facts checked】editor roster / APC / abstract cap / data statement? [Y/N]