Review of Financial Studies Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, RFS editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: RFS submission instructions.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the empirical identification strategy is strong enough for RFS
• whether the theoretical contribution is novel rather than incremental
• whether the contribution generalizes beyond the specific setting

• a clear substantive question of broad finance relevance
• a credible identification strategy (empirical) or novel mechanism (theoretical)
• comprehensive robustness checks
• a connection to broader finance literature
• a cover letter establishing the contribution clearly

• Weak identification. Empirical papers without a credible causal identification strategy are routinely returned.
• Incremental theoretical contribution. Minor variants of established models without a novel mechanism.
• Narrow specialist focus. Findings whose value depends on the specific empirical setting.
• Missing robustness. Empirical claims without alternative specifications, placebo tests, or sensitivity analysis.

RFS is one of the top-three finance journals (with JF and JFE). The editorial standard is exceptionally high.

Quantitative-methods emphasis: RFS differentiates from JF (broader scope) and JFE (corporate finance and asset pricing emphasis) by having a stronger quantitative methods emphasis.

Identification-first empirical standard: RFS editors triage on identification strategy before examining the substantive findings.

The 70-80% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

Broad finance framing: RFS serves the broad finance community, not just one subfield.

The strongest RFS cover letters establish:

• the substantive question and its broad finance relevance
• the identification strategy (empirical) or novel mechanism (theoretical) in 1-2 sentences
• the central finding and its generalizable implications
• comparison to closely related JF, JFE, or RFS literature

• Is Review of Financial Studies a good journal?
• Journal of Finance submission guide

Before upload, run your manuscript through an RFS identification and contribution readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with finance manuscripts targeting RFS, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 40% of RFS desk rejections trace to identification-strategy weakness in empirical papers. In our experience, roughly 25% involve incremental theoretical advances. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from contributions that don't generalize beyond the specific empirical setting.

• Identification-strategy weakness in empirical papers. RFS editors expect a credible causal identification strategy. We observe that papers relying on observational variation without a clear identification argument are routinely desk-rejected.

• Incremental theoretical advances. Editors at RFS look for novel mechanisms, not minor variants of established models. We see manuscripts proposing small extensions of existing models routinely declined.

• Context-specific contributions without generalization. RFS expects insights that extend beyond the specific empirical setting. We find that papers whose value is limited to one country, industry, or time period are routinely returned. An RFS identification and contribution readiness check can identify whether the package supports a top-three submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places RFS among top-three finance journals globally.

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top-three finance journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the identification strategy must be readable in the abstract; RFS editors triage on identification before substantive findings. Second, robustness checks should be comprehensive enough that a reasonable referee at top-three level cannot easily propose a counter-specification. Third, the contribution must generalize beyond the specific empirical setting; RFS expects insights that extend across countries, industries, or time periods. Fourth, the cover letter should establish broad finance relevance in the opening sentence.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for RFS is the abstract-framing distinction. Abstracts that lead with the substantive finding before naming the identification strategy receive "where is the identification?" feedback during desk screening. RFS editors at top-three level operate with limited triage time, and the identification strategy needs to be visible in the first one to two sentences of the abstract. We coach researchers to articulate their identification strategy in one phrase before drafting the abstract; if the one-phrase identification reduces to "we use cross-country data" or "we use a panel," the strategy is structurally weak for top-three. If it reads like "we exploit the staggered rollout of policy Z as a natural experiment," the identification is structurally credible. The same logic applies across top-three finance venues (JF, JFE, RFS): editors are operating with limited triage time, and the submissions that get traction articulate the identification strategy before the substantive finding.

In multiple RFS pre-submission reviews, three additional warning signs recur. First, manuscripts where the abstract states a finding before stating the identification strategy tend to be flagged for "where is the identification?" feedback during desk screening. Second, papers that use natural-experiment language without showing pre-trends, falsification tests, or sensitivity to bandwidth choices receive friction at editorial triage. Third, papers that frame the contribution narrowly to one specific sample (one country, one industry, one decade) draw the "doesn't generalize" feedback that is one of the dominant rejection patterns at top-three finance journals. Researchers who anticipate these three signals before submission have a meaningfully higher chance of clearing the editorial screen at JF, JFE, or RFS.