Before you submit
What we're looking for
The Review publishes original economics research, including empirical analysis, theoretical argument, economic history, and policy evaluation. There is no restriction on topic, method, or school affiliation. A paper need not be exhaustive to be publishable, but it must advance a specific argument, support that argument with evidence, and state clearly where the evidence is limited.
Common reasons papers get rejected
Most rejected papers share one of the same problems. The research question is too broad for the available space, the evidence does not clearly support the stated conclusion, or the paper does not acknowledge what it cannot show. Authors should evaluate their own paper against these criteria before submitting.
Timeline & peer review
The Review accepts submissions on a rolling basis; there is no deadline. The editorial board will acknowledge receipt within five business days and provide a decision (accept, revise and resubmit, or decline) within eight weeks. As a condition of submission, authors agree to serve as a peer reviewer for at least one other submission during the review cycle, using a rubric provided by the editorial board.
The oral review conversation
Authors may be invited to a brief conversation with the editorial board before a final decision is made. This is not an oral exam. Authors may have their paper open and may take notes during the conversation. The purpose of the conversation is to confirm that the author understands the work, including its motivation, its methodology, its key results, and any other aspect that requires economic judgment. An author who cannot explain the argument or defend the paper's numeric results will not have the paper published. The conversation evaluates intellectual ownership of the work, not adherence to a review process.
Quantitative work: code & data
Papers that include quantitative analysis should link the underlying code and data within the paper itself. Any numeric result that is not directly cited to an existing source should be reproducible from the materials provided. A reader should be able to derive the reported numbers from the data and the method described, rather than rely on the author's assertion alone. A short Code Availability section is the preferred location for these links; authors whose papers already include an acknowledgements section may place the links there instead.