Use when a Journal of Financial Economics (JFE) result needs the exhaustive robustness battery the journal is known for — alternative measures, subsamples, specifications, and falsification. Builds the stress-test plan; it does not choose the core estimator (jfe-empirical-design) or the identification design (jfe-identification).
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jfe-robustness --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Jfe Robustness?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-jfe-robustness)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: jfe-robustness
description: Use when a Journal of Financial Economics (JFE) result needs the exhaustive robustness battery the journal is known for — alternative measures, subsamples, specifications, and falsification. Builds the stress-test plan; it does not choose the core estimator (jfe-empirical-design) or the identification design (jfe-identification).
---
# Robustness Battery (jfe-robustness)
## When to trigger
- The result holds in the baseline but you have not tried obvious alternatives
- A referee could ask "does this survive a different measure / sample / specification?"
- You are unsure which robustness tests belong in the main text vs. the Internet Appendix
- You suspect a result might be fragile and want to find out before a referee does
## Why robustness is JFE's signature
JFE's referee culture rewards thoroughness: a result is credible only after it survives a wide battery of sensible alternatives, and reviewers expect *every* alternative explanation to be addressed, not merely the convenient ones. A fragile result that breaks under a routine variation is a classic JFE rejection. The headline tests live in the main text; the rest go to the Internet Appendix, which JFE asks you to append to the end of the main manuscript file (see `jfe-internet-appendix`).
Because JFE mandates a **code + non-proprietary-data deposit** (Mendeley Data) at acceptance for post-2021 submissions, your robustness battery must be *runnable*, not just described — referees increasingly probe reproducibility after the field-wide concerns about non-replicable factors (the Fama-French factor lineage is the benchmark) and fragile staggered-DID results.
## The robustness dimensions
Work through each; for each, decide main-text vs. appendix.
### 1. Alternative measures
- Re-measure the dependent and key independent variables (different proxies, data sources, definitions).
- Show the result is not an artifact of one operationalization.
### 2. Alternative specifications
- Add/remove fixed effects; vary the control set; show coefficient stability (a coefficient-stability / Oster bounds argument for omitted-variable bias where relevant).
- Functional form: levels vs. logs, linear vs. nonparametric.
### 3. Alternative samples
- Drop influential years (e.g., the financial crisis), industries, or large firms.
- Subperiod stability; exclude the most/least-treated units.
### 4. Alternative inference
- Re-cluster at a different level; wild-cluster bootstrap when clusters are few.
- Permutation/randomization inference where appropriate.
### 5. Falsification & placebos
- Outcomes that should *not* respond if your story is right.
- Placebo timing or placebo treatment groups.
### 6. Ruling out alternative explanations
- For each rival story a referee could tell, design a test that distinguishes it from yours.
- This is the single most important block for JFE — list the alternatives explicitly and kill them one by one.
## Checklist
- [ ] Key variables re-measured with at least one alternative proxy
- [ ] Specification varied (FE set, controls, functional form) with stable coefficients
- [ ] Subsample / subperiod stability shown; crisis or outlier periods isolated
- [ ] Inference re-done at an alternative cluster level (or wild bootstrap)
- [ ] Falsification / placebo tests run and reported
- [ ] Each named alternative explanation has a distinguishing test
- [ ] Main-text vs. Internet-Appendix split decided for every test
## Anti-patterns
- Reporting only the robustness checks that pass ("cherry-picked specifications")
- A "robustness" section that re-runs the same model with one extra control and calls it done
- Leaving an obvious rival explanation untested and hoping no referee notices
- A result that flips sign or loses significance under a routine variation, reported without comment
- Dumping every check into the main text so the paper becomes unreadable
## Output format
```
【Headline result】...
【Robustness done】measures[...] specs[...] samples[...] inference[...] placebos[...]
【Alternatives ruled out】[story -> test] pairs
【Fragile under】[...] (if any — fix before submission)
【Main-text vs. appendix】split decided: yes/no
【Next】jfe-tables-figures
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!