--- name: review-of-financial-studies description: Use when targeting Review of Financial Studies (RFS) or deciding whether a finance manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Review of Financial Studies (review-of-financial-studies) ## Journal positioning The Review of Financial Studies is published by the Society for Financial Studies and, with JF and JFE, one of the finance "top-3." It is the top-3 outlet most associated with methodological innovation — new methods, new theory, and new ways of looking at asset pricing and corporate finance — and it runs a registered-reports track for hypothesis-driven empirical work. The readership is the whole finance profession, so a paper must matter beyond its niche and ideally push the methodological or conceptual frontier. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the SFS / RFS / Oxford site and the editorial submission system. ## When to trigger - The author names RFS (or the finance top-3) as the target venue. - A finance paper introduces a new method, a new theoretical angle, or a methodologically innovative empirical design, and the author is choosing among JF / JFE / RFS. - The author is considering RFS's registered-reports track for a pre-specified, hypothesis-driven study. - The author needs RFS's desk-reject risks and a credible top-3 / top-field alternative list. ## Scope & topic fit - Asset pricing (empirical and theoretical) and corporate finance, with a premium on methodological or conceptual novelty rather than one more anomaly. - Banking/intermediation, market microstructure, household and behavioral finance, FinTech and new-data settings. - Theory that opens a new question or a new modeling approach, and empirical work that brings a new identification or estimation idea. - Pre-registered, hypothesis-driven empirical studies suitable for the registered-reports format. ## Method & evidence bar - RFS rewards methodological innovation, but the new method must be correct, well-motivated, and shown to matter — not novelty for its own sake. - Asset-pricing empirics meet current inference standards (multiple-testing/p-hacking, proper standard errors, factor-zoo skepticism, out-of-sample and placebo evidence). - Corporate-finance causal claims need a real source of variation with modern DiD/IV/RDD rigor and pre-empted confounders. - Theory must deliver testable, economically interpretable implications; registered reports must specify hypotheses, data, and analysis in advance. ## Structure & house style - The introduction states the question, the methodological or conceptual advance, the identification or model, and the headline magnitude early, and says why it matters for finance broadly. - Distinguish the contribution from the nearest JF/JFE/RFS papers explicitly; "no one has tested X" is not a contribution. - RFS uses an unstructured abstract and JEL codes; an Internet Appendix carries robustness, derivations, and secondary results. - Exhibits report economic magnitudes (not only t-stats); the central result should be legible from one table or figure. ## 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 "Review of Financial Studies submission guidelines" and follow the current SFS/Oxford version. - Re-check the submission fee, formatting, abstract/JEL, anonymization, and the disclosure policy (data sources, conflicts, prior circulation). - Re-check the current registered-reports track rules and the data/code and Internet Appendix requirements. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence stating why this result matters to the broad finance profession. - [ ] The contribution is stated as method / theory / identification / new measurement, not as a significant coefficient. - [ ] The introduction positions the paper against the most recent JF/JFE/RFS work on this question. - [ ] Inference is robust to current standards; if a registered report, the pre-specified design is complete. - [ ] Disclosure, data sources, and the Internet Appendix are ready. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A "new method" that is unmotivated, incorrect, or shown not to change any substantive conclusion. - A "new anomaly / new factor" paper that does not clear the multiple-testing and robustness bar. - A corporate-finance regression with endogeneity and no credible source of variation. - A paper that is really accounting (`the-accounting-review`, `journal-of-accounting-and-economics`) or economics (`journal-of-political-economy`) framed as finance. ## Re-routing decision - Broad top-3 importance with less methodological novelty → `journal-of-finance`; quantitatively serious / structural empirics → `journal-of-financial-economics`. - Second-tier-elite finance → `review-of-finance`, `journal-of-financial-and-quantitative-analysis`, `journal-of-corporate-finance`. - Banking/intermediation, markets, or international → `journal-of-financial-intermediation`, `journal-of-financial-markets`, `journal-of-international-money-and-finance`. - Pure quantitative/derivatives theory → `mathematical-finance`; econometrics-of-finance methods → `journal-of-empirical-finance`; large-volume applied → `journal-of-banking-and-finance`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Review of Financial Studies [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```