--- name: journal-of-economic-perspectives description: Use when targeting Journal of Economic Perspectives (JEP) or deciding whether an accessible symposium-style article fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, contribution bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Journal of Economic Perspectives (journal-of-economic-perspectives) ## Journal positioning JEP is the American Economic Association's accessible, communication-first journal. It publishes non-technical, symposium-style articles that explain economic ideas, evidence, and debates to the broad community of economists — readers across all fields, not specialists in the author's subfield. The contribution is clear exposition and synthesis of what economists should know about a topic; articles are largely solicited around themed symposia, and the prized quality is communication, not original estimation or technical apparatus. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting or proposing, re-check the live author instructions on the AEA site and the editorial submission system. ## When to trigger - The author wants to write or propose a JEP article, or has an accessible synthesis aimed at all economists. - A scholar wants to communicate a literature, debate, or set of facts to a general economist audience without heavy technical machinery. - A technical paper's broad message could become an accessible companion piece for the profession at large. - The author needs JEP's symposium/proposal route, desk-reject risks, and a credible accessible-venue alternative list. ## Scope & topic fit - Accessible accounts of an economic topic, debate, policy area, or empirical regularity for non-specialist economists. - Symposium contributions organized around a theme, giving the reader a balanced map of what is known and contested. - "Recommendations for further reading," retrospectives, and perspective pieces that frame a field's big ideas. - Not original empirical estimation, formal theorems, or a comprehensive technical literature review (that is JEL's role). ## Method & evidence bar - Communication is the filter: the article must be readable by any economist, explaining ideas and evidence without jargon, heavy notation, or original estimation. - It should synthesize and interpret existing evidence fairly, conveying magnitudes and intuition rather than deriving results. - Claims must be accurate and well-sourced even though the prose is non-technical; balance and judgment matter more than novelty. - No new structural model, theorem, or regression table is expected; technical apparatus is minimized by design. ## Structure & house style - Pitch by proposal / symposium fit first: a clear topic, the intended takeaway for a general economist, and why it belongs in JEP. - The article leads with the question and its stakes, then walks the reader through the key ideas, evidence, and open debates in plain prose. - JEP uses minimal technical apparatus: few or no equations, light on tables, figures used for intuition; references support but do not dominate. - The tone is explanatory and balanced; the reader should leave understanding the topic, not navigating a technical proof. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Journal of Economic Perspectives submission guidelines" / proposal instructions, and follow the current AEA / editorial version. - Re-check whether the piece should begin as a proposal/symposium inquiry to the editors, and current expectations for solicited vs. unsolicited submissions. - Re-check formatting, abstract, length, figure, and reference conventions, and any disclosure/conflict requirements on the submission system. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence stating the takeaway a non-specialist economist should leave with. - [ ] The contribution is accessible synthesis and communication, not original estimation or theory. - [ ] The prose is jargon-free and readable across fields; technical apparatus is minimized. - [ ] The route (proposal/symposium vs. full submission) matches current editorial expectations. - [ ] Formatting, length, figures, and references match the current official guide. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A technical research paper submitted as if it were a JEP article. - An exhaustive, citation-heavy literature review that belongs in JEL rather than an accessible perspective. - Jargon, heavy notation, or original estimation that the general-economist audience cannot follow. - A narrow, partisan, or op-ed-style piece with no balanced synthesis or general-interest takeaway. ## Re-routing decision - An authoritative, comprehensive, technical literature review → `journal-of-economic-literature`. - Original empirical or theoretical contributions → `american-economic-review`, `quarterly-journal-of-economics`, `journal-of-political-economy`, or the relevant AEJ. - A single crisp new result → `aer-insights`; policy-facing original work → `aej-economic-policy`. - A field-specific accessible piece → the relevant field outlet or annual-review series. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Journal of Economic Perspectives [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```