eer-writing-style

Writing Style (eer-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The introduction buries the question under data or machinery
• The abstract is a method recital, not a result a generalist can grasp
• Research highlights, keywords, or JEL codes are missing or weak
• The prose reads as field-internal and loses the general-interest reader

The EER writing bar

EER is general-interest, so the writing must make a non-specialist economist see the question, the answer, and why it matters — fast — while satisfying specialists on rigor. Elsevier economics house elements: a structured/concise abstract, research highlights (a few bullet points capturing the core findings), JEL codes and keywords, a declaration of interest, and SEs reported in the text rather than significance-star prose. The introduction must execute a clear arc and the headline result with its uncertainty should appear early.

The EER introduction arc

1. Question — a first-order economic question a generalist cares about (one sentence).
2. Why it is hard / open — the obstacle (identification, theory gap, measurement).
3. Approach — data + design or model, in plain terms.
4. Headline result with uncertainty — the magnitude with a standard error / CI, early, in units.
5. Mechanism / interpretation — what drives it; what it means.
6. Contribution & lesson — the checkable delta + the portable lesson (ties to eer-literature-positioning).
7. Scope — what the result does not establish.
8. Brief roadmap — short, no over-signposting.

House elements

• Abstract: concise, result-forward, generalist-legible; state the headline finding, not just the method (re-confirm any word limit on the guide for authors — 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Research highlights: a few short bullets, each a concrete finding (Elsevier requirement).
• JEL codes + keywords: accurate and cross-field where the result travels.
• Declaration of interest and funding statement present.
• Numbers in prose: report point estimate + SE/CI, never an asterisk in a sentence.

Checklist

• First paragraph states the question + headline quantity + its uncertainty
• A non-specialist can state the contribution after reading the intro
• Abstract is result-forward, not a method recital
• Research highlights present (concrete findings, not topics)
• JEL codes + keywords accurate; cross-field where relevant
• Declaration of interest + funding statement included
• In-text numbers carry SEs/CIs, no significance asterisks in sentences
• Scope sentence states what is NOT claimed; roadmap is brief

Anti-patterns

• Leading the intro with the estimator/solver instead of the economic question
• An abstract that says what you did but not what you found
• "Significant at the 1% level (***)" prose instead of an estimate with an SE
• Throat-clearing ("X has been studied extensively") with vague stakes
• Field jargon that loses the general-interest reader on page one
• Over-signposted roadmap doing the work the argument should do
• Missing research highlights / declaration of interest (Elsevier requirements)

Worked vignette (illustrative)

Before: "We estimate a structural model by SMM and find the pass-through elasticity is significant at the 1% level (***)." After: "When an input cost rises, how much reaches consumers? We find a 10% cost shock raises retail prices 6.2% (s.e. 0.7) — about a third is absorbed by consumer search — implying that wherever shoppers can compare sellers, measured pass-through understates the underlying shock." Question + magnitude + uncertainty + portable lesson, no stars, in two sentences. See resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md.

Output format

【Intro arc】question→hard→approach→result(w/ SE)→mechanism→contribution→scope→roadmap present? [Y/N]
【Abstract】result-forward + generalist-legible? [Y/N]
【Highlights】concrete-finding bullets present? [Y/N]
【House elements】JEL + keywords + declaration of interest + funding? [Y/N]
【Numbers】SEs/CIs in prose, no asterisks? [Y/N]
【Next step】eer-replication-package (assemble deposit) or eer-referee-strategy