Revacc Workflow

RAST Workflow Router (revacc-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you which revacc- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) — the Springer top-tier accounting journal edited by Paul Fischer (待核实; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). RAST sits squarely in financial accounting and reporting: disclosure, earnings quality and management, valuation and capital markets, analysts and forecasting, audit, taxation, and the economic consequences of accounting. Crucially, RAST publishes three method lanes side by side — empirical archival, analytical (modeling), and some experimental work — and is known for methodological rigor with a relatively fast, well-run process.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as RAST. Operational tells that you are at RAST and not a sibling or a generic top journal: submission runs through Editorial Manager (Springer), with a submission fee of USD $500 payable within 7 days or the paper is withdrawn (待核实; 检索于 2026-06); review is double-blind; the journal advertises prompt turnaround and an explicit tradition of making an accept/reject decision on the first round for most manuscripts (rather than many R&R cycles); abstracts run roughly 150–250 words (待核实); and there is a recurring RAST Conference whose accepted papers feed a conference issue while all conference submissions are also considered for the regular journal. Re-verify volatile specifics on the official Springer page.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" with a half-built RAST manuscript
• A draft's current bottleneck — fit, model, identification, evidence, exhibits, prose — is unclear
• Work is ping-ponging between modeling/estimation, framing, writing, and the response letter
• A RAST decision letter arrived (often a terse first-round accept/reject) and the user must decide whether to rebut, revise, or redirect

Routing table

Default order

1. revacc-topic-selection — lock a contribution-driven financial-accounting question with RAST fit
2. revacc-theory-development — build the friction/mechanism, or the analytical model and propositions
3. revacc-literature-positioning — stake the contribution vs. the accounting frontier and the siblings
4. revacc-methods — design identification (or fix model primitives) matched to the question
5. revacc-data-analysis — estimator, FE, clustering, construct validation, robustness
6. revacc-contribution-framing — turn results into an explicit accounting contribution
7. revacc-tables-figures — finalize main exhibits in accounting house style
8. revacc-writing-style — full-manuscript prose polish (abstract + intro last)
9. revacc-submission — Editorial Manager preflight (anonymization, fee, files)
10. revacc-review-process — calibrate expectations for the first-round-decision model
11. revacc-rebuttal — after an R&R, revise then draft the response

revacc-tables-figures and revacc-writing-style are late-stage polish. Do not invoke them while identification, the model, or the contribution is still unsettled.

Routing by paper archetype

RAST's three lanes have different first bottlenecks. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.

Difference vs. the AAA/Chicago/Elsevier family

• RAST is the Springer top accounting outlet that explicitly welcomes both archival and analytical work, with a fast first-round-decision culture and the RAST Conference path.
• TAR (The Accounting Review, AAA) is method-agnostic and contribution-first but archival-dominated; JAR (Chicago Booth/Wiley) prizes identification and posts a data-and-code package; JAE (Elsevier) leans economics-of-accounting with an archival house style and the JAE data archive; CAR (CPA Canada/Wiley) is broad and methodologically catholic. If your study is purely a methods demonstration with no accounting payoff, RAST is the wrong venue.

Worked routing example (illustrative)

A user says: "My analytical disclosure model solves, but a referee says the equilibrium is not the minimal structure and the comparative static has no obvious accounting reading." That is two RAST-analytical pushbacks — model not parsimonious and no accounting payoff — both owned by revacc-theory-development, with positioning against the disclosure-theory frontier in revacc-literature-positioning. Route there first; only once the proposition is the leanest one that delivers an accounting-relevant comparative static do you move to revacc-tables-figures (for the equilibrium illustration) and revacc-writing-style.

Anti-patterns

• Treating RAST as archival-only and shoehorning an analytical paper through an empirical chain (or vice versa)
• Treating RAST like TAR, JAR, JAE, or CAR — different owners, portals, data policies, and decision cultures
• Polishing prose or exhibits before identification, the model, and the contribution are stable
• Assuming many R&R rounds: RAST's first-round-decision norm raises the bar on the initial submission

Output format

【Target】Review of Accounting Studies (Springer)
【Lane】archival / analytical / experimental
【Current bottleneck】fit / model / identification / evidence / exhibits / style / submission / revision
【Next skill】<one revacc-* skill>
【Reason】why this step is the binding constraint
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 待核实

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Review-of-Accounting-Studies-Skills/skills/revacc-workflow/SKILL.md