Use when deciding which restud-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill restud-workflow --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Restud Workflow?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-restud-workflow)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: restud-workflow
description: "Use when deciding which restud-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills."
category: general-purpose
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Review-of-Economic-Studies-Skills/skills/restud-workflow/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Review-of-Economic-Studies-Skills/skills/restud-workflow/SKILL.md
---
# REStud Workflow (restud-workflow)
## Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you which one to use next, and in what order.
Default assumption: unless the user names a different venue, the manuscript targets **The Review of Economic Studies (REStud)** — a top-5 general-interest journal (OUP, for the Review of Economic Studies Ltd; founded **1933** to advance **theoretical and applied** economics equally, especially by younger economists). REStud prizes a *clean, original contribution* — a new model, a new identification strategy, or a striking new empirical fact — presented rigorously and economically. It is not a finance-only stack, not a theory-only stack, and not a working-paper repository.
## REStud-specific anchors (carry these through every stage)
- **Identity:** founded 1933, theory and applied weighted equally; home of the **REStud Tour** (former May Meetings, annual since 1989) for promising young economists — calibrate ambition to that bar.
- **Submission:** **Editorial Express** portal, **USD 250 fee** (reduced **USD 150** if every author is a student / within 6 years of PhD / in a low-or-middle-income economy; rate effective 1 June 2026), **double-anonymous** review, **Harvard author-date** references, JEL codes, **~45-page** limit; editors desk-reject ~20–23% before refereeing.
- **Replication:** the **Data Editor (Miklós Koren)** runs an **AEA DCAS** pre-publication reproducibility check; packages deposit at **Zenodo**.
- **Editors (2026):** Joint Managing Editors include Jan De Loecker, Antonio Penta, Jakub Steiner (verify the full current roster).
## When to Use
- The user asks "what should I work on next?"
- The user dumps a draft and you must decide where the bottleneck is
- The user is rotating between theory, empirics, writing, and revision and loses track of the stage
- A referee report has arrived and the work mode must switch from drafting to rebuttal
- The user is preparing a job-market paper for the REStud "May Meetings" / Tour pipeline and wants the manuscript at REStud standard
## Routing Map
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Idea is fuzzy; the one-sentence contribution will not compress | `restud-topic-selection` |
| Related-work positioning is thin; closest papers not confronted | `restud-literature-positioning`|
| Empirical design is the bottleneck (DID / IV / RDD / RCT / structural) | `restud-identification` |
| The paper is theory or has a model whose proofs need an online appendix | `restud-theory-model` |
| Main results exist but referee-anticipating checks are missing or fragile| `restud-robustness` |
| Tables are oversized / footnote-bloated; figures do not carry the result | `restud-tables-figures` |
| Prose is bloated; abstract over length; contribution buried | `restud-writing-style` |
| Preparing the data/code deposit or auditing reproducibility | `restud-replication-package` |
| Want to anticipate who referees and what they will demand | `restud-referee-strategy` |
| Final preflight before clicking submit (format, length, anonymity) | `restud-submission` |
| A referee report / R&R arrived and a response letter is needed | `restud-rebuttal` |
## Default Sequence
For a typical REStud-track manuscript, prefer this order:
1. `restud-topic-selection` — fix the one-sentence original contribution *before* anything else
2. `restud-literature-positioning` — locate the contribution against the closest 3–5 papers
3. `restud-identification` — for empirical papers, stress-test the design; if it fails here, no later skill saves the paper
4. `restud-theory-model` — for theory papers (or empirical papers with a model), build the model and route proofs to the online appendix
5. `restud-robustness` — anticipate the checks the demanding median REStud referee will require
6. `restud-tables-figures` — finalize exhibits so each one carries a result
7. `restud-writing-style` — only now polish prose, abstract, and introduction
8. `restud-replication-package` — assemble the deposit while results are fresh in code
9. `restud-referee-strategy` — map the likely referee pool and pre-empt objections
10. `restud-submission` — final preflight: length, anonymity, format, files
11. `restud-rebuttal` — after review, revise the manuscript first, then write the letter
> `restud-identification` and `restud-theory-model` are **parallel branches**: empirical papers lean on the first, theory papers on the second, and many REStud papers (theory-with-empirics) need both. `restud-writing-style` is a **late polish** — do not run it before the contribution and design are stable.
## Decision Cues
If the user says...
- *"I have data but no story"* → `restud-topic-selection`
- *"My closest paper is in QJE 2022 and I don't know what I add"* → `restud-literature-positioning`
- *"My DiD has staggered treatment and TWFE"* → `restud-identification`
- *"My model has a proposition but no proof section"* → `restud-theory-model`
- *"A referee will say the result is driven by X"* → `restud-robustness`
- *"My table 3 has 14 columns"* → `restud-tables-figures`
- *"My intro is 5 pages and buries the contribution"* → `restud-writing-style`
- *"I got a conditional accept; I need the data deposit"* → `restud-replication-package`
- *"Who is going to referee this and what will they want?"* → `restud-referee-strategy`
- *"I'm submitting tomorrow"* → `restud-submission`
- *"I got an R&R with three reports"* → `restud-rebuttal`
## Differences vs. Other Top-5 Stacks
REStud overlaps heavily with AER / QJE / JPE / Econometrica in standards, but its center of gravity differs:
- vs **AER**: AER weights cross-subfield interest and policy salience; REStud equally welcomes a clean theoretical or methodological contribution with no policy hook, and is famously *friendly to young scholars* — the **REStud Tour / May Meetings** (annual since 1989) showcase graduating PhD job-market work.
- vs **Econometrica**: Econometrica tolerates very heavy formal machinery as the contribution itself; REStud wants the economics payoff of the theory to be legible.
- vs **JPE**: JPE has a price-theory / Chicago tilt; REStud is field-agnostic and European-rooted.
If the paper is finance-specific (JF / JFE / RFS) or theory so abstract it is really a math paper, a different stack fits better.
## Anti-Patterns
- Polishing prose (`restud-writing-style`) before the identification or model is stable
- Treating `restud-theory-model` as optional for an empirical paper that has a model — REStud referees check that the model's assumptions map to the empirics
- Assembling the replication package only after acceptance — REStud's **Data Editor (Miklós Koren) runs an AEA DCAS reproducibility check before publication** (Zenodo deposit), so it is part of the production timeline, not an afterthought
- Writing the rebuttal against the old draft instead of the revised manuscript
- Skipping `restud-referee-strategy` because "the design is obviously fine" — REStud referees are demanding and develop strong papers across rounds
## Handoff Contract
Whenever this skill is invoked, end with:
```text
NEXT SKILL: <restud-skill-name>
REASON: <one sentence>
INPUTS NEEDED: <artifacts the next skill needs>
```
---
**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Review-of-Economic-Studies-Skills/skills/restud-workflow/SKILL.md`
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!