Aer insights how to#
Aer insights plus#

If you revise the paper, then you should describe the changes to the paper since the AER version in the letter to the editor (including changes you made beyond those requested by AER referees, if any) and also include detailed response letters to the referees. For example, you may have AER reports that are detailed and all point in the same direction, and you feel confident there would not be much of a role for editorial guidance in this case. In some cases, however, it might make sense to send a revised paper to the AEJ. The assigned editor may want to see additional changes, a different emphasis, or may tell you not to implement some of the referees’ requests.

Aer insights how to#

It allows you to get editorial guidance on how to revise the paper.

It saves you work in case the assigned editor was going to reject the paper due to issues of fit or to shortcomings that a revision cannot address.

It gets to the AEJ faster, and is likely to ultimately get published (at the AEJ or elsewhere) faster.

Aer insights plus#

It is generally best to send exactly the same paper you sent to the AER to the AEJ and include a brief cover letter (typically no more than 5 pages of text, plus no more than 5 tables or figures) that explains how you think you could deal with the main comments of the referees if you were invited to revise the paper. Generally, it is neither necessary nor recommended that you revise the paper. Should I revise my paper and include referee responses before submitting to AEJ? The AEJ editors make their own decisions on all manuscripts. The assigned AEJ editor will discount a report that looks unreasonable or misinformed, and they could proceed based on the other, high-quality reports or solicit a report from a new referee. Even in the case where one of the AER referees misunderstood the paper or was unreasonable, you might still consider using the transfer option. You should use the transfer option if you consider the AER reports generally informative, thoughtful, and reasonable. The additional referee input could come from new referees or from the existing AER referees. This option is more likely if the AER reports were focused on explaining why the paper was not a good fit for the AER but did not provide much guidance on how the paper would need to be revised to become publishable in a very good alternative journal, or if the paper has been revised since the AER submission. This option is more likely if the AER referees expressed support for an R&R at the AEJ level in their cover letters to the AER or in response to an inquiry from the assigned editor to them. Request a revision without soliciting additional reports In this case, 50% of the submission fee is refunded, following AEA policy. This may occur if the available correspondence, or the assigned editor’s own reading, makes clear that the paper is not a good fit for this AEJ or has a shortcoming that a revision would be unlikely to address. The assigned editor has the following options: The assigned editor then evaluates the paper, decision letter, the reports, and cover letters, and decides how to proceed. The AEJ editor assigns the paper either to themselves or to a co-editor.

The editorial office then forwards the AER decision letter, the reports, and, with permission, the cover letter and identity of each referee to the editor of the relevant AEJ. If a referee does not respond within 7 days, this is taken as no permission. The editorial office contacts each of the AER referees to ask them for permission to share their identity and cover letter with the relevant AEJ. In what follows, AER is short for both the AER and AER: Insights. Frequently Asked Questions about the Transfer Option from AER or AER: Insights to an AEJ