---
name: jole-writing-style
description: Use when polishing prose, the 100-word abstract, and the introduction for a Journal of Labor Economics (JOLE) manuscript — Chicago author-date references, the 20,000-word economy, and a general labor-economics audience. Polishes exposition; it does not change results or design.
---

# Writing Style (jole-writing-style)

## When to trigger

- The abstract exceeds **100 words** or does not state the finding
- The introduction wanders before reaching the labor question and the result
- Citations are not in **Chicago author-date** style, or are ordered wrong in-text
- Sentences are jargon-dense for a general labor-economics readership

## JOLE house style: precise, economical, audience = labor economists

JOLE is read across labor economics, not by one subfield, so the prose must make a labor question legible to any labor economist while respecting a strict word economy. Format facts that directly shape the writing:

- **100-word abstract.** This is short — there is no room for throat-clearing. Open with the question and design, **state the result with a number**, and close with the labor takeaway. Count the words.
- **~20,000-word soft cap, full-page table/figure = 500 words.** Every paragraph and every exhibit competes for the same budget; relocate heavy detail to a bounded online appendix rather than padding the body.
- **Chicago author-date references**, with the JOLE convention that in-text citations are ordered **chronologically, then alphabetically within the same year** (a, b disambiguation), and **three or more authors are cited as first author "et al."** Purely alphabetical in-text ordering reads as off-template.
- **Single-blind:** the manuscript is **not** anonymized, so you may cite your own prior work naturally ("Smith and Lee (2019) show …") — no awkward third-person self-references.

## The introduction arc (JOLE labor template)

1. **The labor question** — one or two plain sentences; stakes for workers/firms/markets clear.
2. **Why it is hard** — the identification or measurement problem that has blocked a clean answer.
3. **The setting & variation** — the policy reform, natural experiment, register, or survey that solves it.
4. **The headline result** — the number with units (e.g., "raises earnings by 6%"), stated early.
5. **Mechanism & interpretation** — the labor-economic channel in a sentence.
6. **Contribution & external relevance** — placement in the labor literature + what it teaches beyond this setting.
7. **Roadmap** — brief.

## Abstract: state the finding in ≤ 100 words

- One breath for question + design, then **the result with a number**, then the labor lesson.
- No "this paper studies the important issue of"; the 100-word budget will not survive it.
- A labor economist should know what you found from the abstract alone.

## Sentence-level craft

- Active voice; short declaratives for key claims.
- Quantify ("lowers separations by 4 percentage points") rather than vague intensifiers ("substantially affects").
- Define notation once; do not make the reader hold five symbols.
- Hedge only where the design requires it; calibrated confidence reads as competence.

## Checklist

- [ ] Abstract is **≤ 100 words** and states the finding with a number
- [ ] The labor question is on page one in plain language
- [ ] Headline result appears early in the intro, with units
- [ ] External relevance ("beyond this setting") is explicit
- [ ] **Chicago author-date** cites; in-text **chronological-then-alphabetical**; "et al." for 3+
- [ ] Within the ~20,000-word economy; detail moved to a bounded appendix, not padded
- [ ] Claims quantified, not vaguely intensified

## Anti-patterns

- An abstract over 100 words, or one that names the topic but never the result
- Leading the intro with method ("We use a Sun–Abraham estimator …") instead of the labor question
- Purely alphabetical in-text citations rather than chronological-then-alphabetical author-date
- Awkwardly anonymizing self-citations (unnecessary — JOLE is single-blind)
- Vague magnitude language ("significantly", "substantially") with no number
- Padding the body to look thorough instead of using a tight online appendix

## Output format

```
【Abstract verdict】≤ 100 words, states finding+number? [Y/N] — fix: ...
【Intro arc】question / hardness / variation / result / mechanism / contribution? [Y/N each]
【Headline number in intro】present + units? [Y/N]
【External relevance stated】[Y/N]
【References】Chicago author-date, chronological-then-alpha in-text, "et al." 3+? [Y/N]
【Word economy】within ~20,000 words incl. 500/page exhibits? [Y/N]
【Next step】jole-replication-and-data-policy or jole-review-process
```