jie-review-process

Review Process (jie-review-process)

When to trigger

• You want to know what happens after you press submit at JIE
• Deciding whether the Prior Review Process (PRP) expedite path applies to you
• Calibrating expectations on desk-reject odds and acceptance rates
• Understanding why suggesting the right (Co-)Editor matters

How JIE handling works (verified 2026-06-20)

JIE is an Elsevier journal whose official board lists Editors Martin Uribe (Columbia) and Costas Arkolakis (Yale) plus Co-Editors across international trade and international macroeconomics/finance. A handling editor whose profile matches your paper is assigned; you are advised to suggest a fitting Editor or Co-Editor at submission. The Guide states a single anonymized review model: editors first assess suitability, and suitable manuscripts are typically sent to at least two reviewers. Per Arkolakis's professional page, regular-submission acceptance has historically run ~10-15%, with desk rejects around 25%. A clean, scope-matched submission with credible identification or a disciplined structural model clears the first screen; a paper that is not original in its motivation or modelling structure does not.

Three submission types exist: regular, Short Paper (≤6,000 words and ≤5 exhibits), and Prior Review Process (PRP).

The Prior Review Process (PRP) expedite option

PRP is JIE's distinctive accelerator. If your paper was rejected at AER, Econometrica, JPE, QJE, or Review of Economic Studies, you may attach that journal's editorial decision letter and the referee reports and select 'PRP' from the Article Type menu. JIE editors use the prior reports to speed up the decision. Key facts:

• It carries no extra fee versus a regular submission (the standard fee still applies).
• It is for papers that already cleared substantial refereeing at a top general-interest journal — it does not bypass JIE's own judgment, it informs it.
• Be transparent: include the full letter and all reports, not a curated subset.

What to expect at each stage

• Desk screen: scope fit (trade or international macro/finance), originality of motivation/modelling, and basic execution. ~25% desk-rejected.
• Referee round(s): suitable manuscripts typically go to a minimum of two reviewers; international-trade or open-economy-macro referees probe identification, the gravity/structural specification, or the model's discipline against data.
• Decision: reject, R&R, or (rarely) accept. On R&R, go to jie-rebuttal.

Anti-patterns

• Using PRP without a qualifying letter from one of the five named journals
• Sending a trade paper without suggesting a trade editor (risking a macro-editor mismatch)
• Attaching only the favorable parts of a prior referee report under PRP
• Expecting general-interest-journal acceptance odds at a field journal

What survives the desk screen — a referee's-eye checklist

The desk screen runs on three questions before a paper reaches referees. Pass all three or expect a desk-reject (confirm current rates against the editors' pages).

• Scope half is unambiguous: the paper is clearly trade or international macro/finance, and an Editor or Co-Editor in that half is suggested. A mis-routed trade paper landing with a macro editor reads as a poorer fit than it is.
• Originality axis is nameable in one line: new motivation (data/fact) or new modelling structure — not "important" or "policy-relevant."
• Core method is field-credible on its face: gravity is PPML with multilateral-resistance fixed effects; a structural claim is disciplined against moments; a policy effect has a credible-identification sketch in the intro.

PRP routing worked example (illustrative)

A trade paper is rejected at QJE after two referee rounds; the reports praise the firm-level customs data but split on the structural counterfactual. Under PRP the author selects 'PRP' from the Article Type menu and attaches the full QJE decision letter and both referee reports — favorable and critical — not a curated subset. The cover note suggests a trade Editor or Co-Editor and flags that the structural concern is the live issue, so the JIE editor can target a referee on exactly that. PRP carries no extra fee beyond the standard submission fee and does not bypass JIE's own judgment; it informs it. Confirm the qualifying-journal list (AER, Econometrica, JPE, QJE, REStud) and any procedural detail against the current author guidelines before relying on it.

Output format

【Submission type】regular / Short Paper / PRP
【PRP eligible】prior reject at AER/Econometrica/JPE/QJE/REStud with letter+reports? [Y/N]
【Editor fit】suggested Editor or Co-Editor matched to trade / macro-finance? [Y/N]
【Stage】desk screen / referee round / decision
【Odds context】~10-15% accept, ~25% desk-reject (historical)
【Next step】jie-submission (preflight) or jie-rebuttal (on R&R)

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Guide, editorial-board, PRP, and Arkolakis context sources
• ../../resources/external_tools.md — field data and toolkits referees will expect you to have used