---
name: arecon-editor-strategy
description: Use when working with the Annual Review of Economics (ARE) Editorial Committee and production team — negotiating the commissioned scope, anticipating what review referees evaluate, and the author–editor relationship on an invited article. Plans the interaction; it does not run the delivery preflight (arecon-submission) or draft the response letter (arecon-revision).
---

# Editor & Committee Strategy (arecon-editor-strategy)

## When to trigger

- The Editorial Committee invited the topic and you are negotiating the review's scope
- You want to anticipate what ARE referees of a *review* will push on (different from a paper)
- The editor has asked you to expand, cut, or rebalance coverage
- You are calibrating how the Committee-driven review cycle and the Annual Reviews production timeline work

## Who you are working with at ARE

ARE is run by an **Editorial Committee** of senior economists (current co-editors 检索于 2026-06-22：Philippe Aghion, Hélène Rey, Timothy Besley；re-verify before relying — the Committee rotates on five-year terms；以官网为准) plus the journal's **production editors** at Annual Reviews. Your primary partners differ by phase: the **commissioning editor / Committee** owns scope and acceptance; the **production editor** owns format, figures, copyediting, and the volume schedule. Because the article is **commissioned**, the relationship is more collaborative than adversarial — the Committee wants the review to succeed — but acceptance is **not** automatic: an invited manuscript still goes through review for accuracy, rigor, and balance (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).

## How review differs for a review article

ARE referees do **not** check an identification strategy or replicate results — there are none of the author's own. They evaluate the review **as a review**:

| Referee question | What they are really checking |
|------------------|-------------------------------|
| Is the coverage complete? | the saturation/comprehensiveness from `arecon-literature-synthesis` — can they name an omitted literature? |
| Is it balanced and accurate? | even-handedness across schools; no self-promotion (`arecon-evidence-standards`) |
| Is there a real framework? | the spine vs. an annotated bibliography (`arecon-organizing-framework`) |
| Is it accessible? | can an adjacent economist follow it (`arecon-writing-style`) |
| Are the appraisals fair and correct? | does the author characterize each study's contribution and limits accurately |
| Is it the right scope? | not too narrow (field review) nor unfinishably broad (Handbook) |

Referees of an ARE review are often **the reviewed authors themselves** — the people whose work is being weighed will read how you weighed it. This makes balance and accurate attribution strategic, not just ethical.

## Economics-specific editorial posture

- Treat the editor conversation as a scope contract about literatures, mechanisms, and evidence hierarchies: theory, quasi-experimental work, structural models, macro evidence, and applied micro fields may each expect different standards of synthesis.
- When an editor asks for broader coverage, answer by naming the economic question the added work changes: mechanism, welfare implication, identification lesson, policy margin, market design, or macro/finance channel.
- Push back on additions that turn the piece into a handbook chapter; ARE value comes from a field-level economic framework plus selective appraisal, not from listing every empirical setting.

## Scope negotiation with the Committee

- **Lock scope early, in writing.** The invitation/acceptance stage is where scope is cheapest to change. Confirm the boundaries with the editor before months of reading.
- **Negotiate, don't capitulate, on coverage asks.** If a referee or editor wants an added literature, assess whether it fits the spine; propose where it goes or explain why it is out of scope — a review cannot grow without bound and must stay in the ~25–40-page envelope (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- **Surface conflicts of interest.** If a likely referee is a central author you must critique, tell the editor — Annual Reviews requires disclosure of potential bias, and it protects both the process and you.
- **Respect the volume schedule.** ARE publishes one volume per year; production has fixed deadlines. A late draft can slip a whole volume. Confirm the timeline with the production editor and plan backward from it.
- **Keep a coverage ledger.** Maintain a short, sharable record of what is in scope and why (and what was deliberately excluded), so when the editor or a referee asks "why not X?", you answer with a decision already made.

## Checklist

- [ ] Scope agreed with the commissioning editor in writing at the invitation stage
- [ ] Anticipated the six review-referee questions (coverage, balance/accuracy, framework, accessibility, appraisal, scope)
- [ ] Coverage-expansion asks evaluated against the spine and the page envelope before agreeing
- [ ] Conflicts of interest (referees who are reviewed authors) flagged to the editor
- [ ] Attribution and appraisals double-checked, knowing reviewed authors may referee
- [ ] Volume/production timeline calibrated with the production editor (volatile — confirm)
- [ ] A plan for which asks you accept vs. push back on, with reasons

## Anti-patterns

- Treating an invitation as guaranteed acceptance — invited reviews are still refereed for rigor and balance
- Accepting every "please also cover…" until the review loses its spine and overruns the page envelope
- Mischaracterizing a reviewed author's work when that author may be your referee
- Hiding a conflict of interest instead of disclosing it (Annual Reviews requires disclosure)
- Missing the production deadline and slipping the volume
- Asserting current editors / timeline / process from memory rather than the live Annual Reviews pages

## Output format

```text
【Scope agreement】boundaries locked with editor in writing? Y/N
【Referee anticipation】coverage / balance / framework / accessibility / appraisal / scope — prepared each? Y/N
【Coverage asks】evaluated against spine + page envelope; accept/push-back plan? Y/N
【COI】reviewed-author referees flagged to editor? Y/N
【Timeline】volume/production schedule calibrated? Y/N · 待核实
【Source status】current editors/process re-confirmed on Annual Reviews pages? Y/N
【Next step】→ arecon-submission (preflight) → arecon-review-process (what to expect)
```