Journal of Economic Perspectives Response to Reviewers
How to respond to Journal of Economic Perspectives editorial feedback: write for the JEP proposal-first model, translate specialist evidence for broad AEA readers, and avoid treating the revision like a normal AER-style referee rebuttal.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to use this page well
These pages work best when they behave like tools, not essays. Use the quick structure first, then apply it to the exact journal and manuscript situation.
Question | What to do |
|---|---|
Use this page for | Building a point-by-point response that is easy for reviewers and editors to trust. |
Start with | State the reviewer concern clearly, then pair each response with the exact evidence or revision. |
Common mistake | Sounding defensive or abstract instead of specific about what changed. |
Best next step | Turn the response into a visible checklist or matrix before you finalize the letter. |
Quick answer: A Journal of Economic Perspectives response to reviewers is usually better treated as a response to editorial feedback, not a normal anonymous-referee rebuttal. JEP is proposal-first, mostly solicited, and edited for broad AEA readers. Your response should quote each editorial point, specify the page and line number or section where the change appears, and prove that the essay became clearer, more timed, and more useful to economists outside the subspecialty.
Last reviewed July 17, 2026. If you are responding to JEP feedback now, run a JEP revision-readiness check before you send the revised package, or use the template below by hand. For first-submission mechanics, use the Journal of Economic Perspectives submission guide.
Why JEP revisions are not normal rebuttals
The American Economic Association's JEP guidance says most articles are solicited, that unsolicited proposals are considered, and that JEP generally prefers a 2 to 5 page proposal rather than an unsolicited full manuscript. It also says proposals with potential receive more detailed feedback, that the editor and author may iterate on the article shape, and that a draft receives detailed comments from editors plus suggested edits from the Managing Editor.
That means the phrase "JEP response to reviewers" can mislead authors. The work is often not a conventional referee-response document. It is an editorial-response document: you are showing the JEP editorial team that the essay now fits the journal's perspective contract.
The response needs to prove four things:
JEP revision question | What your response must show |
|---|---|
Is the article still a JEP essay? | The revision explains central economic ideas for a broad AEA audience, not only a subspecialty |
Did the perspective thesis sharpen? | The introduction now states what economists should understand differently |
Did the topic timing improve? | The article explains why this topic belongs in JEP now, not only why it is important |
Did you engage with editorial edits? | Each comment has a concrete change, page or section location, and a short rationale |
If the feedback asks for a more accessible explanation of a model, figure, institution, or empirical result, do not answer with "we added more technical detail." Answer with the reader-facing change: the paragraph that now explains the economic mechanism, the table that now separates facts from interpretation, or the example that lets a non-specialist economist follow the argument.
Copyable JEP editorial-response template
Use this structure when JEP sends detailed comments on a proposal, invited draft, or revised article. Keep the editor's comment visually distinct from your reply. Bold the comment or put it in a shaded text box, then answer in plain text below it.
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the detailed comments on our Journal of Economic
Perspectives proposal, "Housing Supply After the Pandemic." We have revised the essay
around three changes: a sharper perspective thesis, a more accessible
explanation for broad AEA readers, and a clearer account of why the
topic belongs in JEP now. We summarize the changes below and then
respond point by point.
Summary of major changes
1. We revised the opening section so the article now argues that
[perspective thesis], rather than presenting the topic as a standard
research-survey claim. See page 1, paragraphs 1 to 3.
2. We replaced the specialist model description with an intuition-first
explanation and moved the technical derivation to a short appendix
note. See page 4, section "Mechanism in plain economics."
3. We added a timing paragraph explaining why the literature, policy
setting, and recent evidence make this the right moment for a JEP
essay. See page 2, paragraph 4.
Point-by-point response
Comment 1: "The article still reads like a field-journal literature
review rather than a JEP perspective essay."
Response: We agree. We rewrote the introduction around the perspective
claim that [claim], and removed the paragraph-by-paragraph literature
catalogue. The revised introduction now states what economists outside
the field should take away. See page 1, paragraphs 1 to 4.
Comment 2: "The reader needs a less technical explanation of the core
mechanism."
Response: We replaced the notation-heavy explanation with a two-step
economic intuition and a simple example. The equation remains in the
appendix note for readers who want the derivation. See page 4,
section "Mechanism in plain economics."
Comment 3: "The proposal should explain why this topic is timely for
JEP rather than generally important."
Response: We added a timing paragraph that identifies the recent policy
change, measurement advance, and new empirical literature that make the
topic suitable for JEP now. See page 2, paragraph 4.
Comment 4: "The disclosure and data statements need to be explicit."
Response: We added a conflict-of-interest statement, AI-use statement,
and data/code availability note consistent with AEA policy. See page 12,
section "Disclosures and data."
Sincerely,
Maya Chen, on behalf of all authorsThe template includes the tokens an editor can scan fast: a short editor letter, numbered comments, action verbs, and page or section locations. It also avoids the wrong frame. You are not trying to win an argument against a referee. You are proving that the article now fits JEP's editorial purpose.
The page-and-section rule
For each editorial point, cite the exact page, section, paragraph, figure, table, appendix note, disclosure statement, or data statement changed. "We revised throughout" is too vague for a JEP revision because the editor needs to see whether the paper became a better JEP article, not merely a longer article.
Use locations like these:
Weak location language | Better JEP response language |
|---|---|
"We have revised the introduction." | "We rewrote page 1, paragraphs 1 to 3, around the perspective thesis." |
"We added more background." | "We added a non-specialist explanation of the mechanism on page 4." |
"We addressed the timing concern." | "We added a timing paragraph on page 2 explaining the policy change and new evidence." |
"We added disclosures." | "We added conflict, AI-use, and data/code statements on page 12." |
This is also where standard response-to-reviewers advice still helps. Stafford Noble's PLOS Computational Biology article on responses to reviewers emphasizes making the response self-contained, responding to every point, and using typography to help readers navigate the document. Those rules transfer to JEP, but the substance changes: the thing you are locating is usually a perspective, accessibility, timing, or editorial-policy fix.
Typography: keep editor text and author replies separate
Do not blur the editor's comment and your reply in one paragraph. JEP comments often combine topic fit, broad-reader accessibility, structure, and style. If you answer inside the comment, the editor has to reconstruct what was asked and what changed.
Use one of these formats:
- put each editorial comment in bold and your response in regular text
- use a two-column table with
CommentandResponse - use a shaded blockquote for the editor's comment and plain text below it
- keep long Managing Editor edits in a separate tracked manuscript, then summarize only the substantive changes in the response note
For a JEP article, typography is not decoration. It separates the editorial diagnosis from your revision action.
Tone calibration for JEP feedback
The tone should be cooperative, but not empty. JEP is an edited journal with an explicit philosophy. If an editor says the essay is too technical, too literature-review-like, or not timely enough, the response should show the conceptual change.
Avoid | Better |
|---|---|
"We believe the original treatment was already accessible." | "We saw that the mechanism depended too much on specialist terminology. We rewrote the section around the economic intuition first." |
"We added more recent citations." | "We replaced the catalogue of recent papers with a timing paragraph explaining what changed in the field." |
"The mathematical details are necessary." | "We retained the derivation in an appendix note and rewrote the main text for broad AEA readers." |
"The topic is obviously important." | "We now explain why this topic belongs in JEP now, rather than only why it matters generally." |
"We addressed the disclosure issue." | "We added explicit conflict-of-interest, AI-use, and data/code statements in the final section." |
The strongest reply is specific, calm, and visible in the manuscript. It says what changed and why that change brings the article closer to the JEP contract.
The JEP reviewer-culture signal: editorial fit before technical defense
Economics authors often bring the wrong response habit to JEP. In AER, AEJ, Econometrica, JET, or QJE, a revision response often turns on identification, proof completeness, data construction, or a referee's requested robustness check. JEP is different. Its public guidance says it wants accessible, opinionated perspectives that help economists understand central ideas, why they matter, what recent work changed, and what remains to be examined.
That changes the response strategy. A JEP editor is not only asking "did the author answer each technical request?" The editor is asking whether the article now belongs in a journal designed to be readable by 90 percent or more of the AEA membership. If your response adds 12 new robustness checks but the essay still reads like a field-journal paper, the revision has not solved the JEP problem.
Economics refereeing canon reinforces the risk. Berk, Harvey, and Hirshleifer's JEP article on referee reports argues that economics review can overproduce revisions and that reviewer disagreement is a real feature of the process. For a JEP author, the lesson is not to chase every possible technical extension. It is to separate changes that make the essay publishable in JEP from optional extensions that would make the piece longer, narrower, or less accessible.
What we see in our pre-submission review work on JEP revisions
In our pre-submission review work on Journal of Economic Perspectives revisions, the response packages that struggle usually share one of four patterns. These are not official AEA rules. They are anonymized, manuscript-level failure patterns we check before authors send a revised proposal or article back to the journal. The useful signal is component-level: proposal memo, introduction, outline, sample section, figure or table, reference plan, disclosure statement, and cover email all need to show that the article moved closer to JEP's broad-reader contract.
Journal of Economic Perspectives accessibility comments answered with more literature. The editor asks for a clearer explanation of the economic mechanism, and the revision adds another page of citations. That may help a JEL-style review, but it does not necessarily help JEP. The response should identify the exact paragraph, figure, or example that now makes the mechanism readable to a non-specialist economist. Check whether your JEP revision answers the accessibility concern →
Journal of Economic Perspectives timing comments treated as citation-count problems. A JEP timing concern is not fixed by saying the topic has many papers. The response needs to explain what changed: a policy moment, a measurement breakthrough, a new consensus, a dispute that matured, or a literature that now needs synthesis. The revised introduction or topic memo should state why this is the right JEP moment. Check whether your JEP timing argument is specific enough →
Journal of Economic Perspectives replies written as if the audience is only the editor. The editor reads the response, but the article has to work for broad AEA readers. A strong response says how the revision changed the reader experience: less notation in the main text, clearer institutional explanation, a better table, or a new example that lets economists outside the subfield follow the argument.
Journal of Economic Perspectives responses defending the research contribution instead of the perspective contribution. Many JEP ideas come from serious research programs. But the response should not keep proving that the underlying research is publishable somewhere. It should prove that the article now offers the perspective JEP asks for: what is fundamentally at issue, why economists should care, and what remains unresolved.
The commercial value of a JEP revision check is timing. By the time JEP sends detailed feedback, the idea has cleared at least some editorial-interest threshold. The highest-return intervention is not generic copyediting. It is checking whether the revised response actually closes the editorial concerns before the author sends it back.
Readiness check
Run the scan to see how your manuscript scores on these criteria.
See score, top issues, and what to fix before you submit.
How to handle common JEP feedback
Editorial feedback | What to change in the manuscript | What to say in the response |
|---|---|---|
"Too much like a literature review" | Replace coverage chronology with an opinionated perspective thesis and a tighter outline | "We rewrote the introduction around the perspective claim and removed the chronological survey structure." |
"Too technical for JEP readers" | Move notation, derivation, or specialist detail out of the main narrative | "We rewrote the mechanism explanation for broad economists and moved derivation detail to an appendix note." |
"Why now?" | Add a timing paragraph tied to recent evidence, policy, measurement, or debate | "We added a paragraph explaining why the literature is ready for synthesis now." |
"Too narrow" | Add cross-field implications, policy relevance, or a clearer general-economics question | "We reframed the article around the AEA-wide question rather than the subfield result." |
"Disclosure/data statement missing" | Add conflict, AI-use, IRB where relevant, data/code, and funding statements | "We added the required policy statements in the final section." |
Do not overpromise. If you did not add a full new empirical section, do not claim you did. If you moved technical material to an appendix, say that directly. If an editor asked for a scope cut, treat the cut as a revision success rather than apologizing for it.
When to push back
Most JEP feedback should be accepted or translated into a concrete revision. Pushback is appropriate only when the requested change would damage the JEP article's purpose.
Use a narrow pushback structure:
- acknowledge the editorial concern
- state the revision you made to address the concern
- explain why you did not make the larger requested change
- offer a smaller alternative that protects readability
Example:
Comment: "Could the article include the full derivation of the model?"
Response: We agree that readers need to understand the mechanism. We added
an intuition-first explanation in the main text and placed the full derivation
in Appendix Note A. We did not include the derivation in the main essay because
the main text is written for broad AEA readers, including economists outside
the model's subfield. See page 5 and Appendix Note A.This is better than "space constraints prevent us from doing this." It shows that you solved the reader problem without turning the JEP essay into a specialist paper.
Rejection-on-revision risk
A JEP revision can still end in rejection or decline. The risk is highest when the response closes surface edits but leaves the editorial contract unresolved. Most weak JEP revision packages we see are not rejected because the authors ignored every comment; they get stuck because the response answers comments locally while the essay still reads too narrow, too technical, or too weakly timed for Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Think twice before sending if:
- the revised article is still mainly a research paper with a JEP-style title
- the response cannot name the perspective thesis in one sentence
- the "why now" argument is just a list of recent citations
- the main text still depends on unexplained notation or field-only jargon
- disclosure, AI-use, data/code, or conflict statements are missing
- the response says "addressed" repeatedly without page or section locations
Most authors underweight the last point. A JEP editor should be able to scan the response and find every material change. If the editor has to hunt, the response is doing avoidable damage.
Final JEP response checklist
- [ ] The response names the revised perspective thesis.
- [ ] Each editorial comment has a direct answer.
- [ ] Each answer includes a page, section, paragraph, table, figure, appendix note, or statement location.
- [ ] The revision makes the article more readable to broad AEA readers.
- [ ] Technical material that remains in the main text is explained through economic intuition.
- [ ] Literature coverage supports the perspective rather than becoming the point.
- [ ] The response explains why the topic belongs in JEP now.
- [ ] Conflict, AI-use, data/code, funding, and IRB statements are handled where relevant.
- [ ] The editor's comments and the author's replies are visually distinct.
- [ ] The response does not argue like a standard AER or JET rebuttal unless the editor specifically requested that style.
Before you send the package, use the JEP response-to-reviewers check. The review checks whether your response closes JEP's editorial concerns, whether the revised article is still too technical, and whether the page or section locations are specific enough. Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train AI models on your manuscript.
This page was created by checking AEA's current JEP proposal and editorial-policy pages, the existing Manusights JEP submission and rejection-routing pages for sibling contradiction checks, and rebuttal-craft sources used across the response-to-reviewers family. Official AEA pages define JEP's process; Manusights interpretation translates that process into a revision-response workflow.
- JEP Guidelines for Proposals, American Economic Association
- JEP Editorial Policy, American Economic Association
- How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process, Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Response to Reviewers, PLOS Computational Biology
- Facts and Myths about Refereeing, Journal of Economic Perspectives
Frequently asked questions
Not usually. JEP is proposal-first and mostly editorial-team driven. Authors may receive detailed editorial feedback and Managing Editor edits, but the response should not be written like a standard anonymous-referee rebuttal for AER, AEJ, or JET.
Start with a short note to the editor summarizing the perspective-thesis change, audience-accessibility changes, and section-level edits. Then answer each numbered editorial comment with the change made and the page or section where it appears.
The biggest mistake is treating JEP feedback as a request for more technical research evidence. JEP wants an accessible, opinionated economics perspective for broad AEA readers, so your response must show how the essay became clearer, broader, and better timed.
Yes. JEP says proposals that do not meet its criteria may receive only brief replies, while promising proposals receive more detailed feedback. A revision can still fail if the topic timing, author authority, or broad-reader accessibility problem remains open.
Cite the revised page or section, not just the fact that you made changes. Where relevant, reference the proposed table, figure, policy example, literature paragraph, or disclosure statement that now answers the editor's point.
Final step
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan. See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Your manuscript is never used to train any model.