Jep Revision

---
name: jep-revision
description: Use when responding to Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) editor feedback — accessibility, balance, length, and framing — on an invited or accepted article. Plans the revision and the reply to the editorial team; it does not draft the original article or run the submission preflight.
---

# Revision (jep-revision)

## When to trigger

- A JEP editor's letter arrived asking for changes (not an anonymous referee report)
- The edits center on accessibility, balance, framing, or length — the JEP levers
- The managing editor returned a heavily marked-up draft
- You need to plan the revision and a concise reply to the editorial team

## How JEP revision differs

JEP review is **editor-driven and hands-on**, so revision is a **conversation with the editors and managing editor**, not a rebuttal to hidden referees. The edits will almost always be about *how the piece communicates* — is it accessible enough, balanced enough, well-framed, and the right length — rather than new identification or robustness. The right posture is **responsive and collaborative**: the editors are protecting the broad-audience mission, and on accessibility calls they are usually right.

## Triaging the editor's letter

| Editor concern | What it usually means | The fix (skill) |
|----------------|-----------------------|-----------------|
| "Still too technical / for specialists" | jargon/notation/assumed knowledge remains | `jep-accessibility-and-translation` |
| "Reads as advocacy / one-sided" | competing views or uncertainty underplayed | `jep-balance-and-objectivity` |
| "We lose the thread / what's the argument?" | structure is a survey, no through-line | `jep-narrative-arc` |
| "Too long / cut to length" | exhaustive coverage, not a focused essay | `jep-editor-strategy` (cut coverage, keep clarity) |
| "Tighten the prose / abstract" | voice dull; abstract has machinery | `jep-writing-style` |
| "Exhibits are dense" | research-paper figures/tables | `jep-exhibits-for-general-readers` |

## Building the revision

- **Take accessibility and balance notes as binding.** These are JEP's core; argue only if a change would make the piece *wrong*, and then propose an accessible alternative, not a refusal.
- **Cut coverage before clarity.** When trimming length, remove exhaustiveness and tangents; protect the through-line, the load-bearing examples, and the few essential exhibits.
- **Preserve honesty under pressure to simplify.** If an edit risks overstating a finding, flag it and offer wording that stays accurate (cross-check `jep-balance-and-objectivity` and `jep-evidence-without-equations`).
- **Keep the symposium frame** if applicable — don't expand into a companion piece's territory while revising.

## The reply letter (to the editorial team)

- **Short, point-by-point, and warm.** Map each editorial comment to what you changed and where.
- **Lead with agreement.** Note the edits you simply made; reserve discussion for the few you handled differently, with a brief reason and an accessible alternative.
- **No referee-style combativeness.** This is a collaborative edit, not an adversarial rebuttal.

## Checklist

- [ ] Each editor comment mapped to a concrete change and location
- [ ] Accessibility and balance edits treated as binding (alternatives, not refusals)
- [ ] Length cuts removed coverage, not the through-line or key exhibits
- [ ] No simplification silently overstated a result
- [ ] Symposium scope respected (if applicable)
- [ ] Reply letter is short, point-by-point, collaborative

## Anti-patterns

- Replying to a hands-on editor as if rebutting an anonymous referee
- Resisting accessibility edits ("the experts need this") instead of finding an accessible version
- Cutting clarity (examples, the argument's spine) to hit a length target while keeping exhaustive coverage
- Letting a "make it punchier" edit push the claims past what the evidence supports
- A long, defensive reply letter that re-litigates settled calls

## Output format

```
【Letter type】editor/managing-editor edits (not anonymous referees)
【Top concerns】accessibility / balance / framing / length / prose / exhibits
【Per-comment plan】comment → change → location
【Binding edits done】[accessibility + balance items]
【Length plan】cut coverage; protect through-line + key exhibits
【Honesty check】no edit overstated a finding? [Y/N]
【Reply letter】short, point-by-point, collaborative? [Y/N]
【Next step】return to jep-workflow if a new bottleneck surfaces
```