restud-writing-style

REStud Writing Style (restud-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The introduction runs long and buries the contribution
• The abstract reads as motivation rather than result
• Prose is wordy; the reader cannot find the one clean point quickly
• The paper is technically done but reads as a working paper, not a REStud article
• A seminar comment was "I couldn't tell what the contribution was"

REStud house style

REStud prizes a contribution "presented rigorously and economically," and it must read well to both a theorist and an applied economist — the journal's defining balance since its 1933 founding. The writing standard follows:

• Clarity over flourish. Plain, precise English. The reader should never reread a sentence to parse it.
• Economy. Say it once, well. Cut sentences that restate. The elegance the journal rewards is partly a property of the prose — and the manuscript must fit the ~45-page cap, so the main text carries intuition while full proofs and bulky robustness go to the online appendix.
• Result-forward. The reader learns what the paper finds early — in the abstract, and again in the first page — not after five pages of motivation.
• References: Harvard author-date (REStud house style), e.g., "(Card and Krueger, 1994)" and "Card and Krueger (1994) show ..." — never numbered references. Verify the current style guide on the journal's official page before final formatting.

The introduction

A REStud introduction is not the AER five-paragraph formula by decree, but the same logic serves it well:

1. The hook and the question — the broad economic question, stated so a non-specialist cares.
2. What we do — the contribution: the new model, design, or fact, in one or two sentences.
3. How — the method/design and the key idea that makes it work ("why now / why not before").
4. What we find — the headline result, with magnitude.
5. Why it matters / related work — the contribution located against the closest papers (hand off to restud-literature-positioning if this is thin).

Keep it tight. The editor and referees form a judgment in the first two pages.

The abstract

• One short paragraph. State the question, the contribution (model/design/fact), the headline finding, and why it matters — in that order.
• Result, not motivation. "We document/show/prove X" — not "X is an important and understudied question."
• Keep it to one tight paragraph; verify the current abstract limit on the journal's official author guidelines (the ~45-page manuscript cap is stated; the abstract limit is editor discretion) before submission.

Prose discipline

• Active voice for what you did ("we show", "we estimate"); reserve passive for processes.
• One idea per paragraph; topic sentence first.
• Define each term once; do not toggle synonyms for the same object.
• Cut hedging stacks ("it may perhaps possibly suggest"); state the claim and its caveat once.
• Equations are part of the sentence — punctuate them and gloss every symbol in words on first use.

Checklist

• [ ] Contribution stated by the end of page 1
• [ ] Abstract leads with result, not motivation, and is within the current limit
• [ ] Introduction has hook / what / how / find / matters, tightly
• [ ] No paragraph restates a prior paragraph
• [ ] Author-date references used consistently
• [ ] Every symbol glossed in words on first use
• [ ] A non-specialist could state the contribution after two pages

Anti-patterns

• An introduction that spends 3+ pages on motivation before naming the contribution
• An abstract that sells importance instead of stating the result
• Wordiness and redundancy that obscure an otherwise clean point
• Numbered/footnoted reference style when the journal uses author-date
• Synonym-toggling for the same variable, forcing the reader to re-map notation
• Treating writing polish as a step before the result and design are stable

Output format

【CONTRIBUTION ON PAGE 1?】yes / no
【ABSTRACT】result-forward / motivation-heavy — word count vs current limit
【INTRO STRUCTURE】hook / what / how / find / matters — present?
【REFERENCE STYLE】author-date confirmed
【REDUNDANCY CUT】<lines/paragraphs removed>
【NEXT SKILL】restud-replication-package | restud-submission