Trigger Timing
- The policy recommendations at the end of the paper consist of only one sentence: "the government should pay attention"
- Reviewers point out that "the policy implications are too empty"
- Preparing to submit but the conclusion section is not sufficiently developed
Why is this a hard constraint?
The editorial board of Management World has an extremely strong policy orientation. Even for theoretical articles, the editorial board expects "what implications there are for governance / policy / practice."Empirical articles without policy implications have an extremely low hit rate。
Layered Structure
Policy recommendations are layered along two dimensions:
Dimension 1: Time Layer
- Short term(1–2 years): policy fine-tuning, implementation rules
- Medium term(3–5 years): institutional supporting measures, cross-departmental coordination
- Long term(more than 5 years): basic institutional development
Dimension 2: Level Layer
- Micro(firms / individuals): business decisions, compliance recommendations
- Meso(industry / local): industry self-regulation, local pilots
- Macro(central government / ministries and commissions): laws and regulations, macroeconomic regulation
Write at least 3 policy recommendations,each covering a different time × level combination。
Template
第一，[短期 × 宏观]——基于本文发现，建议[具体部门]在[时间窗]内，[具体可执行动作]。
具体而言，可通过[路径 1] / [路径 2] 实现，预计效果为[本文实证结果]。
第二，[中期 × 中观]——……
第三，[长期 × 微观]——……
Each recommendation must:
- Point toa specific department("the government" is not enough → Ministry of Finance / National Development and Reform Commission / China Securities Regulatory Commission / local people's governments)
- Givean actionable measure(not "strengthen / pay attention to")
- Be linked to theempirical evidenceof this paper (cannot be suggested out of thin air)
Must-check List
- At least 3 recommendations
- Cover at least 2 time layers + 2 level layers
- Each recommendation points to a specific department
- Each recommendation gives an actionable measure
- Each recommendation is linked to this paper's evidence
Anti-patterns
- "It is recommended that the government strengthen regulation / pay attention to the problem / improve the system"—ineffective recommendation
- Recommendations unrelated to this paper's empirical evidence (ESG investment is written about but the recommendations discuss employee stock ownership)
- Recommendations are too grand ("it is recommended to reform the capital market")
- All recommendations are piled into a single paragraph with no layering
Reviewer Expectation Table for Policy Implications of This Journal
Management World is sponsored by the Development Research Center of the State Council, and its policy orientation is the most notable identity difference from general academic journals: the editorial board members are themselves policy researchers, and policy implications are an indispensable pole in the trinity of "theoretical contribution + Chinese practice + policy implications," and must serve major national strategies and decision-making needs. The table below anchors this journal's review expectations and common rejection patterns:
| Dimension | This Journal's Expectations | High-risk Signals for Rejection |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | Name specific departments (Ministry of Finance/NDRC/CSRC/local governments) | "The government should pay attention" |
| Action | Executable actions (set thresholds, adjust detailed rules) | "Strengthen/improve/pay attention to" empty talk |
| Evidence | Each recommendation is linked to this paper's empirical coefficients | Recommendations disconnected from empirical evidence |
| Strategy | Connect to national strategic issues (dual carbon, unified national market, Digital China) | Purely case-by-case with no strategic height |
Common rejection patterns (policy implications dimension)
- The entire paragraph only says "the government should strengthen regulation," with no department, no action, no evidence
- The recommendations are too grand ("it is recommended to reform the capital market"), going beyond the scope this paper can support
- The heterogeneity conclusions are rich, yet the policy recommendations are "one-size-fits-all," wasting the stratified evidence of mw-mechanism-heterogeneity
- The policy implications have no connection to national strategy at all, weakening the fit with this journal's positioning of "serving national decision-making"
Mini walkthrough example: business environment reform evaluation
Building on the aforementioned business environment manuscript, translate the heterogeneity evidence into stratified policy recommendations (the numbers are illustrative):
- Recommendation 1 (short term × macro): Based on the reform shortening the time to start a business and bringing a TFP increase of 0.04 (illustrative), it is recommended that the General Office of the State Council include the "number of days to start a business" as a hard indicator in the annual business environment assessment within 1–2 years.
- Recommendation 2 (medium term × meso): Based on the weaker effect in low-marketization regions (0.020, illustrative), it is recommended that provincial governments carry out cross-departmental coordinated pilots in regions with a weak business environment within 3–5 years, supported by government data sharing.
- Recommendation 3 (long term × micro): Based on private enterprises being more sensitive to reform (illustrative), it is recommended that local governments establish a regular government-enterprise communication mechanism for small and medium-sized private enterprises to reduce institutional transaction costs.
- Strategic alignment: The three recommendations all point to the national strategies of a "market-oriented, law-based, and internationalized business environment" and a "unified national market," giving the policy implications the height this journal expects.
- Judgment: The 3 recommendations cover short/medium/long term × macro/meso/micro, are linked item by item to empirical evidence, name departments, and give actions → meets the standard.
Reviewer follow-up question patterns + revision methods in this journal's context
- Follow-up question: "Do the recommendations exceed the scope that this paper's evidence can support?" → Revision method: after each recommendation, annotate in parentheses the corresponding coefficient or heterogeneity conclusion from this paper, and delete grand claims without evidentiary support.
- Follow-up question: "Are the recommendations too general to be implemented?" → Revision method: rewrite "strengthen/improve" as verifiable actions (set indicators, specify time limits, designate responsible entities).
- Follow-up question: "What is the relationship between the policy implications and national strategy?" → In this journal's context, editorial board members expect an explicit statement of how the recommendations serve a certain national strategy or major decision, rather than remaining only at the micro level of firm-level recommendations.
Calibration anchor
Empirical papers published in this journal generally provide more than 3 stratified policy recommendations at the end, naming the responsible department item by item, giving executable actions, and linking them to empirical evidence and national strategic issues; purely theoretical articles also point to governance or policy implications in the conclusion section. The specific length and departmental titles are subject to the editorial office's latest manuscript guidelines.
Output format
【建议数】X 条
【时间层覆盖】短 / 中 / 长
【层级层覆盖】微 / 中 / 宏
【可执行性】高 / 中 / 低
【与本文证据挂钩度】高 / 中 / 低
【国家战略对接】已对接 / 缺
【下一步】mw-submission