brycewang-stanford JET Workflow Router (jet-workflow)
When to trigger
- "I want to send a theory paper to JET — where do I start?"
- You have a result but are unsure whether it clears JET's theory-first scope gate
- You need the next step after identification of assumptions, drafting, or a referee report
What JET is (so the router routes correctly)
The Journal of Economic Theory is Elsevier's flagship general economic-theory venue (ISSN
0022-0531). The deciding criterion is a rigorous, original theoretical contribution —
mechanism design, information economics, decision theory, game theory, matching, market design,
political economy, finance and macro/monetary theory. Empirical, experimental, quantitative, or
computational work is welcome only when firmly grounded in theory. House style is
theorem-proof, typeset in LaTeX (Elsevier elsarticle). Review is single anonymized
(single-blind) with a floor of at least two referees after an editor desk screen.
Default order
jet-topic-selection (is this a JET-scope theoretical contribution?)
▼
jet-literature-positioning (stake the result against the theory frontier)
▼
jet-identification-strategy (assumptions, results, proof architecture, generality)
▼
jet-contribution-framing (state the theorem and why it matters)
▼
jet-data-analysis (numerical examples / computation — only if any)
▼
jet-tables-figures (schematic exhibits, notation discipline)
▼
jet-writing-style (elsarticle theorem-proof prose; polish)
▼
jet-replication-and-data-policy (Option C data statement; reproducible computation)
▼
jet-review-process (what single-anonymized refereeing expects)
▼
jet-submission (Editorial Manager preflight, .tex source, AI disclosure)
▼
jet-rebuttal (response letter on an R&R)
Router diagnostics
- No theorem sentence yet ->
jet-topic-selection. - Closest theorem unclear ->
jet-literature-positioning. - Assumptions or proof dependencies unclear ->
jet-identification-strategy. - Theorem is right but buried ->
jet-contribution-framing. - Computation is doing too much work ->
jet-data-analysis. - Figures introduce notation drift ->
jet-tables-figures. - Source/package facts are volatile ->
jet-submissionandresources/official-source-map.md.
The next skill should always reduce one JET desk/referee risk: off-scope empirics, overclaimed theorem, hidden assumption, unreadable proof, notation drift, or unsupported submission fact.
Manuscript-state routing table
| Manuscript state | Dominant JET risk | Route |
|---|---|---|
| Idea + model, no theorem sentence yet | off-scope at the desk | jet-topic-selection |
| Theorem proved, novelty delta fuzzy | a "follows from known results" report | jet-literature-positioning |
| Theorem + proof drafted, assumptions scattered through proofs | hidden-assumption catch by a referee | jet-identification-strategy |
| Full draft, introduction shaped like a data story | theorem buried at the desk screen | jet-contribution-framing, then jet-writing-style |
| A numerical section dominating the paper | computation overshadowing the theory | jet-data-analysis |
| Exhibits renaming model objects | notation drift across figure and proof | jet-tables-figures |
| Camera-ready PDF, source files not checked | format bounce (PDF-as-source) | jet-submission |
| R&R letter alleging a proof gap | broken-lemma risk | jet-rebuttal plus jet-identification-strategy |
Routing vignette: a dynamic-contracts paper
The paper proves a recursive characterization of optimal long-term contracts under two-sided limited commitment, plus one computed example. The pass order actually used:
- Topic gate — the characterization theorem is the deliverable: pass.
- Positioning — closest recursive-contract theorem named; delta = commitment limited on both sides.
- Identification — Assumption 2's role in the contraction-mapping step made explicit; a tightness Example added for one-sided commitment.
- Framing — the abstract now carries the characterization sentence, not the application.
- Data-analysis — the computed contract path demoted to Example 2 with a pinned script.
- Tables-figures → writing-style → submission, in order.
One skill was consciously skipped until submission: no external research data existed, but the computed example script was still made reproducible and the eventual Option C statement said so plainly. Record deliberate skips so a later pass does not mistake them for gaps.
Loops, not a one-way pipe
- A rebuttal that narrows a claim re-opens framing and positioning — the abstract and the delta sentence must shrink with the theorem.
- A new counterexample found late re-enters at identification, then propagates forward through framing, exhibits, and prose.
- A referee's "follows from known results" verdict sends the paper back to positioning before any rebuttal sentence is drafted — the reduction must be checked first.
Output format
【Where you are】<stage>
【Use next】jet-<skill>
【Why】<one line tied to JET's theory-first bar>
【Volatile facts checked】editor roster / APC / abstract cap / data statement? [Y/N]