By name: jbes-workflow description: Use when deciding which jbes-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing methods-paper work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (JBES) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
JBES Workflow Router (jbes-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill. It tells you which jbes- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Business & Economic Statistics.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JBES — a methodological econometrics-and-statistics journal published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the American Statistical Association (ASA). JBES's defining demand is methods-with-empirics: a new or improved statistical/econometric method (machine-learning and data-science adaptations and computational improvements explicitly welcomed) that has clear empirical relevance and usually a substantive empirical application. Pure theory without empirical motivation, or pure applications without methodological novelty, are off-scope. The journal runs on a rotating Joint Editor model with no single Editor-in-Chief; current Joint Editors are Yingying Fan, Michael Kolesár, and Dacheng Xiu per the official T&F search snippet. Submission-only details still require opening the live T&F author instructions.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a methods manuscript
- The user hands over a draft and needs the current bottleneck diagnosed
- Work is ping-ponging between theory, simulations, the application, and writing
- A JBES decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the method is novel enough, or it has no empirical relevance / application | jbes-topic-selection |
| Contribution vs. prior econometrics/statistics methods is fuzzy | jbes-literature-positioning |
| The "what's new and why it matters" claim is not crisp | jbes-contribution-framing |
| Regularity conditions / asymptotics / Monte Carlo design are the bottleneck | jbes-identification-strategy |
| The empirical application or simulation evidence is thin | jbes-data-analysis |
| Simulation tables are dense; size/power not legible | jbes-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the method or theorem statements are unclear | jbes-writing-style |
| Data/code supplement and data availability statement not assembled | jbes-replication-and-data-policy |
| Want to understand peer review / discussion-paper handling here | jbes-review-process |
| Ready to submit; need a preflight checklist | jbes-submission |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | jbes-rebuttal |
Default order
jbes-topic-selection— confirm method novelty + empirical relevance fitjbes-literature-positioning— stake the method against prior artjbes-contribution-framing— sharpen the one-sentence methodological contributionjbes-identification-strategy— assumptions, asymptotics, Monte Carlo designjbes-data-analysis— Monte Carlo evidence + the substantive applicationjbes-tables-figures— make size/power/coverage legiblejbes-writing-style— polish prose, theorem statements, abstract (late stage)jbes-replication-and-data-policy— assemble the reproducible supplementjbes-review-process— understand the multi-Co-Editor review pathjbes-submission— preflightjbes-rebuttal— after the R&R
jbes-writing-styleis a late-stage polish. Do not rewrite the introduction before the theory and simulation evidence are settled.
Differences vs. economics / pure-statistics stacks
A pure economics finding with no methodological novelty fits a general-interest economics journal better; pure theorem-proving with no empirical motivation fits a theoretical statistics journal better. JBES sits in between, and because it is ASA-owned it follows ASA editorial/ethics and data-sharing policy rather than the AEA Data Editor / mandatory-pre-publication-replication regime. Operational tells you are at JBES: methods-with-empirics scope, multi-Co-Editor model, ASA supplementary-material expectation, Open Select hybrid OA, and a discussion-paper tradition.
Worked vignette: routing one manuscript end-to-end
A hypothetical JBES manuscript — a dependence-robust forecast-comparison test on FRED-MD inflation (path illustrative) — moves through the stack as follows. The author runs jbes-topic-selection (novelty + a real macro application → in-scope), then jbes-literature-positioning, then jbes-contribution-framing (a HAC-robust test fixing over-rejection). When the limiting null is the bottleneck, route to jbes-identification-strategy; when simulation and application are thin, jbes-data-analysis; then jbes-tables-figures, late-stage jbes-writing-style, the supplement, review, and submission. An R&R routes to jbes-rebuttal, which re-dispatches into the same skills.
Routing as a decision block
【Stage】topic / positioning / framing / method / evidence / exhibits / prose / supplement / submit / rebuttal
【Symptom】the current bottleneck in one phrase
【Route to】the single jbes-* skill that owns it
【Scope gate】novelty AND empirical relevance present? [Y/N] — if N, topic-selection first
【Live-T&F preflight needed】submission-only fact could change route? [Y/N]
【Next】the skill to invoke now
Calibration anchor (hedged): the spine is methods-with-empirics — a method with no application is desk-rejected, and exhibits wait until the asymptotics settle. Submission-specific rules are live-page preflight items.
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
jbes-topic-selection— a method with no empirical relevance is desk-rejected as off-scope - Do not polish exhibits while the asymptotic theory is still unsettled
- Do not treat the empirical application as optional — at JBES it is part of scope
- Do not let
jbes-rebuttaldraft a response letter before the revised manuscript exists