---
name: restud-referee-strategy
description: Use when anticipating the referee pool and their likely objections for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript, and when pre-empting those objections in the paper before submission. Maps reviewers and hardens the paper against them; does not write the rebuttal (that is restud-rebuttal).
---

# REStud Referee Strategy (restud-referee-strategy)

## When to trigger

- Before submission, to pre-empt the objections a demanding referee will raise
- When choosing suggested / opposed referees in the submission form
- When deciding which robustness checks to include up front vs. hold in reserve
- When the design or model has a known soft spot you want to confront proactively

## How REStud refereeing works

REStud uses **double-anonymous (double-blind)** refereeing — referees do not see author identities and authors do not see referee identities, so anonymize accordingly (see `restud-submission`). Papers are handled by editors drawn from the active frontier; the Joint Managing Editors (2026: Jan De Loecker, KU Leuven, IO/applied econometrics; Antonio Penta, UPF, micro theory / mechanism design; Jakub Steiner, Zurich/CERGE-EI, behavioral/information economics) span both theory and applied work, reflecting the journal's balanced identity — so anticipate either a theory-leaning or an applied-leaning reader depending on who handles you. REStud is also known for **demanding referees** and for **constructively developing strong papers across rounds**. Two implications:

1. The first report is rarely an accept; a strong paper typically earns an R&R with substantive requests. Plan the submission so the *first* report's requests are ones you can satisfy, not ones that kill the paper.
2. Referees expect state-of-the-art design (empirics) or complete, correct proofs (theory). The fastest path to rejection is a soft spot the referee can name in one sentence that you did not address.

## Mapping the referee pool

- **Identify the 3–5 most likely referees.** They are the inner-ring authors from `restud-literature-positioning` — the people whose work you are closest to. Assume the referee *is* the author of the nearest paper.
- **For each, predict the objection.** "This author will ask why we don't use their estimator / their data / their setting." Pre-empt it in the text.
- **Predict the methodological referee.** Beyond the topic expert, REStud often uses a methods-focused referee. For empirics, that means the modern-estimator and inference objections; for theory, the assumption-minimality and proof-completeness objections.

## Pre-empting, not hiding

- Address the single most plausible alternative explanation **in the main text**, not buried in an appendix.
- For the design's soft spot, include the diagnostic that confronts it (the placebo, the sensitivity bound, the alternative estimator) rather than hoping it goes unnoticed.
- Cite the likely referee's relevant work where genuinely relevant — not as flattery, but because their result is part of the positioning.

## Suggested / opposed referees

- **Suggested:** scholars who know the subfield, have relevant publications, and are not collaborators or advisors (conflicts disqualify them). Aim for genuine experts, not friends.
- **Opposed:** only with a real conflict (direct competitor with a working paper on the same question, a personal conflict). Over-listing opposed referees signals defensiveness.
- Verify the current submission system's referee-suggestion fields and limits on the journal's official page.

## Sequencing checks for the first round

Because REStud develops papers across rounds, structure the submission so the first report is survivable:

- **Front-load the design's hardest diagnostic.** Put the placebo / sensitivity bound / alternative estimator in the main text, so the referee sees you already did it.
- **Hold a reserve.** Keep one or two additional robustness exercises ready but not in the paper, so an R&R request can be answered with new evidence rather than a promise.
- **Anticipate the "scope" request.** Demanding referees often ask to extend the result (another setting, another mechanism, a generalization of the model). Decide in advance which extensions are feasible and which would turn it into a different paper.
- **Map theory and empirics consistency.** If the paper has both, the referee will check that the model's assumptions match the estimation sample — confirm this before they do.

## Checklist

- [ ] 3–5 likely referees identified from the inner-ring literature
- [ ] Predicted objection written for each, and pre-empted in the text
- [ ] Methods-referee objections (estimator / inference / proof-completeness) addressed
- [ ] Most plausible alternative explanation confronted in the main text
- [ ] Design soft spot has a diagnostic that addresses it
- [ ] Suggested referees are real experts, not collaborators
- [ ] Opposed referees limited to genuine conflicts

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting without asking "who referees this, and what will they want?"
- Hiding the design's soft spot and hoping the referee misses it (a demanding REStud referee will not)
- Suggesting friends as referees — editors discount obviously friendly suggestions
- Listing many opposed referees, which reads as defensiveness
- Treating the first report as a verdict rather than the start of a development process

## Output format

```
【LIKELY REFEREES】[author — predicted objection — pre-empted? where]
【METHODS-REFEREE RISKS】[estimator / inference / proof gaps]
【SOFT SPOT】<the one-sentence objection> — confronted in: <section>
【SUGGESTED REFEREES】[experts, non-conflicted]
【OPPOSED REFEREES】[genuine conflicts only, or "none"]
【NEXT SKILL】restud-submission
```