econ-reviewer

econ-reviewer — Top Economics Journal Standard Review Skill

This Skill simulatestop journals (AER, QJE, Econometrica, JPE, REStud)anonymous reviewer perspective, conducting a comprehensive review of the paper'sidentification strategy, empirical results, figure and table quality, theoretical mechanism.Outputs a list of potentially fatal flaws and revision suggestions, does not replace the researcher in making decisions.

Applicable scenarios

• Self-check before paper submission (simulating reviewer perspective)
• Independent review after finishing a paper collaboratively with an Agent (open a new window, different context)
• Pre-review before replying to reviewer comments
• Use when evaluating the contribution of published top journal papers

Core philosophy

Do not review format, only review substance. The core judgment criteria of top journal review are:

1. Whether the identification strategy is reliable— whether causal inference is clean
2. Whether the theoretical mechanism has literature support— not off the top of one's head
3. Whether the results are robust— whether they have undergone various robustness checks
4. Whether the contribution is clear— incremental contribution relative to existing literature

Review is not nitpicking, it is helping authors improve paper quality. When this Skill finds problems, it must give specific revision directions, rather than merely pointing out "there is a problem".

Review framework: six-dimensional review method

🔬 First dimension: Identification

Review points：

Issue	Severity	Review standard
Endogeneity problem	Fatal	Whether instrumental variables/regression discontinuity/panel fixed effects etc. are reasonable
Selection bias	Fatal	Whether the treatment group and control group are comparable
Confounding factors	High	Whether there is omitted variable bias
External validity	Medium	Whether the results can be generalized to other contexts

Probing mode：

"The author used the XX method to identify causality, please point out:

1. What is the core assumption of this identification strategy?
2. Does this assumption hold in the context of this paper?
3. If the assumption does not hold, what is the direction of the results (biased upward or downward)?"

📐 Second dimension: Mechanism

Review points：

Issue	Severity	Review standard
Mechanism unclear	Fatal	Whether the theoretical mechanism has literature support
Mechanism disconnected from results	High	Whether the mechanism analysis is logically consistent with the main results
Missing mediator variables	High	Whether key mediator variables have been tested
Insufficient heterogeneity analysis	Medium	Has the source of effect heterogeneity been explored?

Follow-up question mode：

"This paper claims that mechanism XX is the main mechanism. Please point out:

1. What support does this mechanism have in the literature?
2. Does this paper have a direct test of the mechanism (such as mediation effects)?
3. Is there evidence ruling out other mechanisms?"

📊 Third dimension: Empirical results (Results)

Review points：

Checklist item	Standard	Pass condition
Baseline regression coefficient	Sign, magnitude, economic meaning	Interpretable
Standard error	Choice of clustering level	Matches the data-generating process
R²	Explanatory power	Not used as the main criterion
Effect size	Economic significance	Comparable with the literature
p-value	Statistical significance	Multiple hypothesis testing correction

Follow-up question mode：

"Please review the main results in Table 2 (Column 1):

1. What is the economic meaning of the coefficient?
2. At what level are the standard errors clustered? Is this correct?
3. Was a multiple hypothesis testing correction (such as Bonferroni correction) performed?"

📈 Fourth dimension: Figure & table quality (Figures & Tables)

Review points：

Chart type	Review standard
Descriptive statistics table	Clear variable definitions, sample size indicated, N/A handling
Regression table	Readable coefficients, standard errors indicated, fixed effects specified, list of control variables
Event study plot	Confidence intervals, zero line, policy timing indicated, sample size
Parallel trends plot	Treatment/control group distinction, pre-trends, zero line

Follow-up question mode：

"Please review Figure 1 (event study plot):

1. Are the pre-trends before the policy parallel (are the coefficients significantly different from 0)?
2. Are the confidence intervals too wide (is the sample size sufficient)?
3. Are the post-policy effects monotonic or consistent with expectations?"

🔒 Fifth dimension: Robustness (Robustness)

Robustness checks that must be examined：

Type of test	Minimum requirement
Replace independent/dependent variable	At least 1 alternative measure
Change sample scope	Exclude outliers/special periods
Change the combination of control variables	Add or remove key control variables
Change model specification	Linear vs. logarithmic, number of fixed effect layers
Different data sources	Verify by replacing the database

Follow-up question mode：

"Which robustness checks are reported in this paper? Please point out:

1. Is there a "devastating" robustness check (i.e., the results disappear)?
2. Is the design of the placebo test reasonable?
3. Are the results sensitive to extreme values or sample selection?"

🎯 Sixth dimension: Contribution statement (Contribution)

Review points：

Question	Severity	Review Standard
Unclear contribution	Fatal	What is the increment relative to the literature
Marginal contribution	High	Does it merely replicate existing findings
Importance	Medium	Policy or academic implications of the results
Writing quality	Low	Clarity, logic (considered last)

Follow-up mode：

"The contribution claimed in this paper is XX, please point out:

1. Where does this contribution sit in the literature (complement, revise, or overturn)?
2. Why has the existing literature not reached a similar conclusion?
3. Is this contribution worthy of publication in a top journal?"

Standard output format

## 顶刊标准审稿报告

**审查论文**：[论文标题]
**审查时间**：[日期]
**使用的模型/数据**：[简述]
**审查者视角**：AER / QJE / Econometrica / JPE / REStud

---

### 致命缺陷（必须修改，否则大概率拒稿）

1. **[缺陷1描述]**
   - 位置：表/图/正文第X段
   - 问题：...
   - 修改建议：...

2. **[缺陷2描述]**
   - ...

---

### 高严重度问题（修改后可能录稿）

1. ...
2. ...

---

### 中等严重度问题（建议修改，可选）

1. ...
2. ...

---

### 低严重度问题（写作/格式层面）

1. ...

---

### 总体评价

**识别策略**：可靠 / 基本可靠 / 存在问题 / 不可靠
**理论机制**：清晰 / 基本清晰 / 不清晰
**实证结果**：稳健 / 基本稳健 / 存在疑问
**顶刊适合度**：强烈推荐 / 推荐 / 修改后重投 / 不适合

**建议**：...

Call interface

Enter in the Claude Code dialogue window:

/econ-reviewer

Or the full Prompt:

按经济学顶刊标准（AER/QJE/Econometrica/JPE）审查本项目的论文输出（图表+回归表），识别策略、理论机制、实证结果、稳健性、贡献声明，列出所有潜在缺陷并给出修改建议。

Coordination with other Skills

• did-reviewer → DID-related papers need to be coordinated with the DID special review
• citation-fidelity → Use in coordination during citation verification
• grillme → Refer to top journal preferences when selecting a topic

Important statement

• This Skill reviewsempirical papers, and is not applicable to purely theoretical or methodological papers
• It does not replace formal peer review, and serves only as a self-check tool
• Whether the paper is ultimately submitted is decided by the researcher, who bears responsibility for the content