brycewang-stanford JFQA Workflow Router (jfqa-workflow)
Use this skill to orient a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA) — an empirical and quantitative finance journal published by Cambridge University Press for the University of Washington Foster School of Business. It prints less than 9% of the 1,000+ papers submitted yearly, so every stage should clear a high bar before you spend the $350 non-refundable-by-$75 submission fee.
When to trigger
- "Where do I start / what's next for my JFQA paper?"
- You have results but are unsure whether the design, framing, or archive is JFQA-ready.
- You received a decision letter and need to route to rebuttal or resubmission.
Routing map
jfqa-topic-selection → is this a JFQA-fit finance question?
▼
jfqa-literature-positioning → stake the contribution vs. the finance frontier
▼
jfqa-identification-strategy → credible design (sorts/FMB, panel FE, DID, IV, RDD, event study)
▼
jfqa-data-analysis → estimation, clustering, robustness, economic magnitudes
▼
jfqa-contribution-framing → one-paragraph ≤100-word abstract + intro contribution
▼
jfqa-tables-figures → finance-standard exhibits with self-contained notes
▼
jfqa-writing-style → polish for a finance audience
▼
jfqa-replication-and-data-policy → build the JFQA Dataverse code/data archive
▼
jfqa-review-process → what double-anonymous JFQA review involves
▼
jfqa-submission → Editorial Manager preflight (PDF, fee, formatting)
▼
jfqa-rebuttal → R&R response letter
Output format
【Stage】where the manuscript is now
【Next skill】single jfqa-* skill to invoke
【Why】one-line rationale tied to a JFQA constraint
【Watch-outs】fee/refund, 100-word abstract, anonymization, code policy, prior-rejection disclosure
Always confirm volatile specifics on the official pages (see resources/official-source-map.md).
Router diagnostics
Ask the manuscript owner for the current bottleneck:
- Question/scope unclear or outside finance:
jfqa-topic-selection. - Closest finance competitor missing:
jfqa-literature-positioning. - Design credibility weak:
jfqa-identification-strategy. - Results not reproducible or magnitudes missing:
jfqa-data-analysis. - Abstract or first page too diffuse:
jfqa-contribution-framing. - Exhibits unreadable without text:
jfqa-tables-figures. - Archive, pseudo data, or exception timing unresolved:
jfqa-replication-and-data-policy.
The route should always reduce one JFQA-specific screen risk: fit, 100-word abstract, anonymization, identification, economic magnitude, code-sharing, fee/prior-rejection disclosure, or exhibit readability.
Stage gates before spending the fee
| Gate | Exit criterion | JFQA risk averted |
|---|---|---|
| G1 Scope | the question scores high on the topic-selection rubric | $75 retained on a desk reject, plus months |
| G2 Design | identifying variation stated in one defensible sentence | the endogeneity report that kills most empirical R&Rs |
| G3 Numbers | headline magnitude expressed in finance units, scaled | the "only statistically significant" complaint |
| G4 Package | run_all regenerates every exhibit; pseudo-data plan set |
a scramble at acceptance under the Code Sharing Policy |
| G5 Preflight | ≤ 100-word abstract, anonymized text-searchable PDF, disclosures drafted | formatting/anonymity strikes and the one-year-ban trap |
Do not let a manuscript pass a later gate while an earlier one is open; JFQA's screens fire in roughly this order.
Worked routing call (illustrative)
A manuscript arrives with strong results but a 138-word abstract, firm-only clustered standard errors never checked against a two-way scheme, and no pseudo-data plan for its CRSP/Compustat extracts. Route in this order: jfqa-contribution-framing first (the abstract cap is a hard constraint and the cheapest fix), then jfqa-data-analysis (inference robustness changes table contents, so it must precede exhibit polish), then jfqa-replication-and-data-policy (pseudo data takes days, and any exception must ride on the initial submission), and only then jfqa-submission. The principle: hard journal constraints and anything that can change numbers come before taste-level polish.
Re-entry points after a decision
- Desk reject → jfqa-topic-selection or jfqa-contribution-framing, depending on whether fit or framing failed.
- Reject after review, planning a substantially modified return → rebuild through the full chain and add the prior-rejection disclosure at jfqa-submission.
- R&R → jfqa-rebuttal, looping back into jfqa-identification-strategy or jfqa-data-analysis for each evidentiary demand.
What can run in parallel
- The Dataverse archive build (jfqa-replication-and-data-policy) can proceed alongside writing-style polish; both consume the frozen results, not each other.
- Exhibit notes (jfqa-tables-figures) and the abstract (jfqa-contribution-framing) share the same headline magnitudes — draft them in one sitting so the numbers cannot diverge.
- Anonymization is not a stage; it is a property every stage must preserve from first draft to resubmission.