jfe-writing-style

Writing Style (jfe-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The introduction hedges or buries the contribution
• Claims outrun the evidence ("proves," "definitively shows")
• Sentences are long, passive, and vague about who did what
• The paper reads like a lab notebook rather than an argument
• A referee might say "I cannot tell what the contribution is"

The JFE register

JFE prose is precise, restrained, and evidence-forward. Because JFE papers are technical and long, clarity is what keeps a referee on your side: every claim is calibrated to the evidence, magnitudes are stated, and the contribution is unmissable in the first page. Overclaiming is punished harder than modest framing. The famous JFE papers — Jensen & Meckling (1976) and Fama & French (1993) — are remembered partly because their central idea is stated plainly and early; write to that standard.

Two hard format facts to write toward (verify on jfinec.com): the abstract must be 100 words or fewer, so it has to carry the question, design, headline result, and significance with zero padding; and the manuscript is double-spaced, 12-pt+, author-date references, which rewards short, declarative sentences over dense clauses.

The introduction (the highest-leverage page)

A JFE-style introduction usually does, in order:

1. The question and why it matters — in the first paragraph.
2. What you do — the setting, design, and data, concretely.
3. What you find — the headline result with direction and magnitude.
4. Why it is credible — one or two sentences on identification/inference.
5. The contribution — explicit, relative to the closest work.
6. A short roadmap (optional, brief).

Lead with results, not with a literature tour.

Sentence-level discipline

• Calibrate verbs to evidence: "is consistent with," "suggests," "we estimate that" — reserve "shows" for what the data actually shows; avoid "proves."
• State magnitudes in interpretable units ("a one-SD increase in X raises Y by Z%"), not just significance.
• Prefer active voice and concrete subjects ("we instrument X with...") over passive fog.
• Cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that...") and filler intensifiers.
• Define each acronym once; do not let jargon stack.

Structure discipline

• Each section has a job; say its result in the first sentence.
• Topic sentences should let a referee skim the paper and still get the argument.
• Keep the methods reproducible-in-prose: a reader should know what you ran.

Checklist

• [ ] The contribution is explicit on the first page
• [ ] Introduction leads with question -> what -> finding -> credibility -> contribution
• [ ] Verbs are calibrated to evidence; no "proves"/overclaiming
• [ ] Headline magnitudes stated in interpretable units
• [ ] Active voice and concrete subjects predominate
• [ ] Acronyms defined once; jargon controlled
• [ ] Abstract is <= 100 words and result-forward
• [ ] References are author-date (name-year), woven into the argument
• [ ] Section topic sentences carry the argument when skimmed

Anti-patterns

• An introduction that spends two pages on prior literature before stating the result
• "Our results prove that..." — JFE referees recoil at overclaiming
• Reporting significance with no economic magnitude
• Passive, agentless sentences that hide what was actually done
• A contribution paragraph so hedged the reader cannot tell what is new
• Decorative jargon that adds length without precision

Output format

【Intro order】question/what/finding/credibility/contribution present? yes/no
【Overclaim scan】flagged verbs/sentences: [...]
【Magnitudes stated】yes/no
【Voice】active-dominant? yes/no
【Contribution visible on p.1】yes/no
【Next】jfe-submission