JEL Workflow Router (jel-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It tells you which jel- skill to use at the current stage* of a survey or review article aimed at the Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) — the American Economic Association's survey-of-record journal (founded 1969). JEL does not publish original empirical research. It publishes commissioned and peer-reviewed syntheses of bodies of economic research, book reviews, and maintains the JEL classification system. So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend"; it is scope a synthesis-worthy field → propose it → read the whole literature → impose an organizing framework → synthesize comprehensively and even-handedly → land the JEL voice → submit and revise.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JEL and the artefact as a survey, not a primary-research paper. Operational tells that you are at JEL and not a sibling: the work reviews other people's results rather than reporting your own; the natural first step is a ~10-page proposal emailed to the editor before a full draft (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准); there is no identification strategy and no replication package of your own data (you instead appraise the studies you cover); the contribution is an analytical map of a field, not a new estimate. If the user actually has original results, they want a primary-research journal (e.g. AER, QE), not JEL — say so.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a survey/review
- A survey draft reads like an annotated bibliography and needs a spine
- Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, balance, and the proposal
- A JEL editor/referee letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
Routing table
| Current symptom |
Next skill |
| Unsure the field is mature/important enough to survey for JEL |
jel-topic-selection |
| Need to pitch the survey to the editor before writing it |
jel-proposal-and-commissioning |
| Reading is unsystematic; citation gaps likely |
jel-literature-synthesis |
| Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field |
jel-organizing-framework |
| Coverage vs. selectivity, or fairness across schools, feels off |
jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance |
| Need who-found-what tables or a conceptual figure |
jel-tables-figures |
| Prose is dense/jargon-laden; non-specialist can't follow |
jel-writing-style |
| Assigning JEL codes, or relating the survey to the JEL taxonomy |
jel-classification-system |
| Negotiating scope or handling referees of a survey |
jel-editor-strategy |
| Ready to submit/propose via the AEA portal; need a preflight |
jel-submission |
| Received editor/referee feedback on the survey |
jel-revision |
Default order
jel-topic-selection — confirm the field is JEL-scale (mature, important, needs synthesis)
jel-proposal-and-commissioning — pitch a ~10-page proposal before drafting
jel-literature-synthesis — gather and read the literature systematically
jel-organizing-framework — impose the analytical spine
jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance — completeness, fairness, even-handed controversies
jel-tables-figures — summary tables and conceptual figures
jel-writing-style — the authoritative-yet-accessible JEL voice (abstract + intro last)
jel-classification-system — assign JEL codes; situate the survey in the taxonomy
jel-editor-strategy — scope negotiation and referee expectations
jel-submission — AEA portal preflight (proposal or full paper)
jel-revision — after the editor/referee letter
jel-writing-style is a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the organizing framework and coverage settle. The proposal comes early — much of JEL is invited or proposal-first, so jel-proposal-and-commissioning precedes the heavy reading.
Anti-patterns
- Writing the full survey before sending a proposal — JEL prefers a ~10-page sketch first (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准)
- Treating the survey as an annotated bibliography (no framework) — the named JEL failure mode
- Using the author's own line of work as the survey's center of gravity (self-promotion)
- Importing primary-research instincts: there is no "identification" or "replication package" — you appraise others' designs, you do not run your own
- Confusing JEL with JEP (shorter, non-technical, broad audience) or with Annual Review of Economics
Routing by survey archetype
A "survey" is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype |
Likely first bottleneck |
Enter at |
| field-defining synthesis (broad subfield) |
scope is enormous; needs a taxonomy |
jel-organizing-framework |
| methods/tool survey (e.g. an estimator family) |
accessibility to non-specialists; worked intuition |
jel-writing-style |
| empirical-evidence stock-take (what is the consensus?) |
comprehensiveness + even-handed weighing of conflicting results |
jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance |
| emerging-area review (young, fast-moving) |
is it mature enough for JEL yet? |
jel-topic-selection |
Minimal decision snippet
if editor_or_referee_letter: -> jel-revision
elif ready_to_submit_or_propose: -> jel-submission
elif codes_or_taxonomy: -> jel-classification-system
elif prose_dense_or_inaccessible: -> jel-writing-style
elif need_tables_or_figures: -> jel-tables-figures
elif coverage_or_fairness_off: -> jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance
elif reads_like_a_list: -> jel-organizing-framework
elif reading_unsystematic: -> jel-literature-synthesis
elif no_proposal_yet: -> jel-proposal-and-commissioning
else: -> jel-topic-selection
1---2name: jel-workflow3description: Use when deciding which jel-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a survey/review article from topic selection through revision for a Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.4---56# JEL Workflow Router (jel-workflow)78## Overview910This is the router. It tells you **which jel-* skill to use at the current stage** of a **survey or review article** aimed at the *Journal of Economic Literature* (JEL) — the **American Economic Association's** survey-of-record journal (founded 1969). JEL does **not** publish original empirical research. It publishes commissioned and peer-reviewed **syntheses of bodies of economic research**, book reviews, and maintains the **JEL classification system**. So the lifecycle is not "design → identify → estimate → defend"; it is **scope a synthesis-worthy field → propose it → read the whole literature → impose an organizing framework → synthesize comprehensively and even-handedly → land the JEL voice → submit and revise.**1112Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JEL and the artefact as a **survey**, not a primary-research paper. Operational tells that you are at JEL and not a sibling: the work **reviews other people's results** rather than reporting your own; the natural first step is a **~10-page proposal emailed to the editor** before a full draft (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准); there is **no identification strategy and no replication package of your own data** (you instead appraise the studies you cover); the contribution is an **analytical map of a field**, not a new estimate. If the user actually has original results, they want a primary-research journal (e.g. AER, QE), not JEL — say so.1314## When to trigger1516- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a survey/review17- A survey draft reads like an annotated bibliography and needs a spine18- Work is ping-ponging between coverage, framing, balance, and the proposal19- A JEL editor/referee letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode2021## Routing table2223| Current symptom | Next skill |24|-----------------|------------|25| Unsure the field is mature/important enough to survey for JEL | `jel-topic-selection` |26| Need to pitch the survey to the editor before writing it | `jel-proposal-and-commissioning` |27| Reading is unsystematic; citation gaps likely | `jel-literature-synthesis` |28| Draft is a list of papers, not an argument about the field | `jel-organizing-framework` |29| Coverage vs. selectivity, or fairness across schools, feels off | `jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance` |30| Need who-found-what tables or a conceptual figure | `jel-tables-figures` |31| Prose is dense/jargon-laden; non-specialist can't follow | `jel-writing-style` |32| Assigning JEL codes, or relating the survey to the JEL taxonomy | `jel-classification-system` |33| Negotiating scope or handling referees of a survey | `jel-editor-strategy` |34| Ready to submit/propose via the AEA portal; need a preflight | `jel-submission` |35| Received editor/referee feedback on the survey | `jel-revision` |3637## Default order38391. `jel-topic-selection` — confirm the field is JEL-scale (mature, important, needs synthesis)402. `jel-proposal-and-commissioning` — pitch a ~10-page proposal before drafting413. `jel-literature-synthesis` — gather and read the literature systematically424. `jel-organizing-framework` — impose the analytical spine435. `jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance` — completeness, fairness, even-handed controversies446. `jel-tables-figures` — summary tables and conceptual figures457. `jel-writing-style` — the authoritative-yet-accessible JEL voice (abstract + intro last)468. `jel-classification-system` — assign JEL codes; situate the survey in the taxonomy479. `jel-editor-strategy` — scope negotiation and referee expectations4810. `jel-submission` — AEA portal preflight (proposal or full paper)4911. `jel-revision` — after the editor/referee letter5051> `jel-writing-style` is a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the organizing framework and coverage settle. The **proposal comes early** — much of JEL is invited or proposal-first, so `jel-proposal-and-commissioning` precedes the heavy reading.5253## Anti-patterns5455- Writing the full survey before sending a proposal — JEL prefers a ~10-page sketch first (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准)56- Treating the survey as an annotated bibliography (no framework) — the named JEL failure mode57- Using the author's own line of work as the survey's center of gravity (self-promotion)58- Importing primary-research instincts: there is no "identification" or "replication package" — you **appraise** others' designs, you do not run your own59- Confusing JEL with JEP (shorter, non-technical, broad audience) or with Annual Review of Economics6061## Routing by survey archetype6263A "survey" is not one thing; the bottleneck differs by type. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.6465| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |66|-----------|-------------------------|----------|67| field-defining synthesis (broad subfield) | scope is enormous; needs a taxonomy | `jel-organizing-framework` |68| methods/tool survey (e.g. an estimator family) | accessibility to non-specialists; worked intuition | `jel-writing-style` |69| empirical-evidence stock-take (what is the consensus?) | comprehensiveness + even-handed weighing of conflicting results | `jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance` |70| emerging-area review (young, fast-moving) | is it mature enough for JEL yet? | `jel-topic-selection` |7172## Minimal decision snippet7374```75if editor_or_referee_letter: -> jel-revision76elif ready_to_submit_or_propose: -> jel-submission77elif codes_or_taxonomy: -> jel-classification-system78elif prose_dense_or_inaccessible: -> jel-writing-style79elif need_tables_or_figures: -> jel-tables-figures80elif coverage_or_fairness_off: -> jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance81elif reads_like_a_list: -> jel-organizing-framework82elif reading_unsystematic: -> jel-literature-synthesis83elif no_proposal_yet: -> jel-proposal-and-commissioning84else: -> jel-topic-selection85```