thedixitjain Review Process at RED (red-review-process)
When to trigger
- Setting expectations on timing and review model before or after submitting
- Understanding what the desk screen decides and what reaches referees
- Planning around the single-anonymized (not double-blind) model
How RED review works (verified)
- Desk / suitability screen first. The editor first assesses whether the paper is suitable for RED; papers that pass are sent out for review. A clean, in-scope, dynamic-model paper clears this faster.
- Single-anonymized review. Reviewers' identities are concealed from authors, but author identities are visible to reviewers — this is not double-blind, so you do not anonymize the manuscript.
- Minimum of two reviewers. Suitable papers go to at least two independent referees.
- Speed is a feature, not a guarantee. The current reviewer page asks reviewers to notify the editor if they cannot act within six weeks, and older SED newsletters report fast first-decision performance. Treat this as planning guidance, then confirm live expectations in the current author system.
- Coordinating Editor. Loukas Karabarbounis (University of Minnesota / Minneapolis Fed) is RED's Coordinating Editor (the editor-in-chief equivalent), cross-checked on SED and ScienceDirect pages.
Planning implications
- Single-anonymized means keep self-citations and acknowledgments natural — no double-blind scrubbing.
- The fast-turnaround target rewards a complete, runnable submission with replication discipline already in place; do not submit a paper whose code archive does not yet exist.
- Plan around a post-desk clock that starts only after the suitability screen and the fee.
Pre-review readiness
Before submission, stage the same materials you would need for a fast R&R:
- model equations and calibration table are internally consistent;
- code archive can rerun baseline and counterfactual exhibits;
- untargeted moments or accuracy diagnostics are available;
- the abstract names the dynamic mechanism and quantitative result;
- any proprietary data or large-runtime issue is documented.
Checklist
- Manuscript is not anonymized (single-anonymized model)
- Paper is in-scope and complete enough to clear the desk screen quickly
- Expectations set for ≥2 referees and live post-desk timing guidance
- Replication materials staged so a fast acceptance is not bottlenecked
Anti-patterns
- Double-blind-scrubbing a manuscript for a single-anonymized journal
- Treating an older turnaround statistic as a guaranteed current deadline
- Treating slow-journal habits (thin appendix, no code) as acceptable here
What fails the suitability screen
Patterns that plausibly stop a quantitative-macro paper at the desk (hedged — the screen is editor judgment, not a published rubric):
| Desk-risk pattern | Why it fails the RED lens |
|---|---|
| Static cross-sectional analysis, no dynamic model | scope is method-defined; no dynamics, no fit |
| Reduced-form policy evaluation with a token "model sketch" | the model must carry the argument, not decorate it |
| Calibration exercise reproducing known results with newer data | no mechanism, method, or moment advance |
| Pure econometric theory with no dynamic-economics object | belongs at an econometrics outlet |
| Incomplete computation ("results to be added", no accuracy info) | the fast-review model presumes a finished quantitative core |
Round log
ROUND LOG — [paper short title]
Submitted (fee received): [date] ← clock starts after fee + desk
Desk decision: [date] suitable / not suitable
Referee reports expected: [live guidance / historical fast-review benchmark]
Decision: [date] reject / R&R / accept
If R&R — archive rerun: [date] resubmission fee: exempt (2nd+ resubmission)
Keep this log in the project repository; it disciplines the team's expectations and gives a polite status query an objective trigger — confirm current expected turnaround against the journal's current author guidelines before quoting any figure to the editor.
Who referees at a SED journal
Expect referees drawn from the SED-conference community: people who solve heterogeneous-agent and business-cycle models themselves. Plan for reports that probe grids, Euler-equation accuracy, calibration circularity, and counterfactual logic rather than only framing — which is why the pre-review staging list above doubles as referee-proofing.
Supplementary resources
red-submission— the pre-submission preflight../../resources/official-source-map.md— review-model and timing sources
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Review-of-Economic-Dynamics-Skills/skills/red-review-process/SKILL.md