Review of Economic Studies Submission Guide
A practical Review of Economic Studies (ReStud) submission guide for economists evaluating their work against the journal's methodological top-five standards.
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
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.
Quick answer: This Review of Economic Studies submission guide is for economists evaluating whether their work meets the ReStud bar. ReStud is among the top-five economics journals (~5-7% acceptance, 70-80% desk rejection). The editorial standard emphasizes methodological rigor and innovation, particularly for empirical work.
If you're considering ReStud, the main risk is not formatting. It is submitting an empirical paper without methodological innovation, an incremental theoretical advance, or a paper whose context-specific findings don't generalize.
From our manuscript review practice
Of submissions we've reviewed for Review of Economic Studies, the most consistent desk-rejection trigger is identification-strategy weakness or methodological novelty gaps. ReStud editors specifically look for empirical work that contributes methodologically, not just substantively.
How this page was created
This page was researched from ReStud's author guidelines, Oxford Academic editorial-policy materials, public top-five economics editorial commentary, and Manusights internal analysis of pre-submission packages we've reviewed.
The specific failure pattern we observe most often is methodological novelty gaps in empirical papers.
ReStud Journal Metrics
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor (2024 JCR) | 14.9 |
5-Year Impact Factor | ~22+ |
CiteScore | 13.2 |
Acceptance Rate | ~5-7% |
Desk Rejection Rate | ~70-80% |
First Decision | 3-5 months |
Submission Fee | $200 |
Publisher | Oxford University Press / RES |
Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, ReStud editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).
ReStud Submission Requirements and Timeline
Requirement | Details |
|---|---|
Submission portal | ReStud Editorial Manager |
Submission fee | $200 |
Length | No formal limit; typical published article is 40-70 pages |
Article types | Original research |
Cover letter | Required |
Pre-submission inquiry | Not accepted |
First decision | 3-5 months |
Revision window | 6-12 months for major revisions |
Source: ReStud submission instructions.
Submission snapshot
What to pressure-test | What should already be true before upload |
|---|---|
Methodological novelty | Empirical papers introduce a new identification strategy, estimator, or measurement approach |
Identification strategy | Causal identification is credible and readable in 5 minutes |
Theoretical novelty | Theory papers introduce a novel mechanism, not minor variants |
Generalizable contribution | Insights extend beyond the specific empirical setting |
Cover letter | Establishes the methodological or theoretical innovation |
What this page is for
Use this page when deciding:
- whether the empirical methodological innovation is strong enough for ReStud
- whether the theoretical contribution introduces a novel mechanism
- whether the contribution generalizes
What should already be in the package
- a clear question of broad economics relevance
- methodological innovation (empirical) or novel mechanism (theoretical)
- comprehensive robustness checks
- connection to broader economics literature
Package mistakes that trigger early rejection
- Empirical papers without methodological innovation. ReStud expects new identification strategies, estimators, or measurement approaches.
- Weak identification. Even with methodological framing, weak causal identification is a problem.
- Incremental theoretical contribution.
- Narrow specialist focus.
What makes ReStud a distinct target
ReStud is one of the top-five economics journals, with a particular methodological emphasis.
Methodological-innovation expectation: unlike QJE (which prioritizes substantive contribution with credible identification) or AER (which has the broadest scope), ReStud editors specifically look for methodological novelty alongside substantive contribution.
The 70-80% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.
Empirical-microeconomics strength: ReStud has a reputation for methodologically innovative empirical microeconomics work.
What a strong cover letter sounds like
The strongest ReStud cover letters establish:
- the substantive question and broad economics relevance
- the methodological or theoretical innovation
- the central finding and generalizable implications
- comparison to closely related top-five literature
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Diagnosing pre-submission problems
Problem | Fix |
|---|---|
No methodological innovation in empirical paper | Identify the specific novel approach (estimator, identification strategy, measurement); if no novelty, repropose to substantive-emphasis journal (QJE, AER) |
Theoretical contribution is incremental | Identify the novel mechanism; if no novel mechanism, the paper fits a more specialized venue |
Contribution doesn't generalize | Either expand the empirical setting or recast to extract generalizable insight |
How ReStud compares against nearby alternatives
Method note: the comparison reflects published author guidelines, public editorial commentary, and Manusights internal analysis. We have not personally been ReStud authors; the boundary is publicly documented editorial behavior. Pros and cons are based on documented editorial scope.
Factor | Review of Economic Studies | Quarterly Journal of Economics | American Economic Review | Econometrica | Journal of Political Economy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best fit (pros) | Top-five with methodological/empirical microeconomics emphasis | Top-five with broad scope | Top-five with broadest scope including policy | Top-five with strongest theoretical/methodological emphasis | Top-five with policy and macro emphasis |
Think twice if (cons) | Empirical work without methodological innovation | Topic is highly methodological without substantive emphasis | Topic is highly methodological or theoretical | Empirical work without strong methodological contribution | Topic is purely micro-empirical |
Submit If
- the empirical paper introduces a methodological innovation
- the theoretical contribution introduces a novel mechanism
- the identification strategy is credible
- the contribution generalizes beyond the specific setting
Think Twice If
- the empirical paper relies on standard methods without innovation
- the theoretical contribution is a minor variant of an existing model
- the contribution is highly context-specific
- the work fits QJE, AER, or JPE substantive emphasis better
What to read next
Before upload, run your manuscript through a Review of Economic Studies methodological-innovation readiness check.
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Review of Economic Studies
In our pre-submission review work with economics manuscripts targeting ReStud, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.
In our experience, roughly 35% of ReStud desk rejections trace to identification or methodological novelty gaps. In our experience, roughly 25% involve incremental theoretical advances. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from contributions that don't generalize.
- Methodological novelty gaps in empirical papers. ReStud editors look for identification strategies, estimators, or measurement approaches that contribute methodologically. We observe that empirical papers using standard methods are routinely declined unless the substantive contribution is exceptional. SciRev community data on top-five economics journals confirms methodological emphasis as a key filter at ReStud.
- Incremental theoretical advances. Editors at ReStud look for novel mechanisms, not minor variants of established models.
- Context-specific contributions without generalization. ReStud expects insights that extend beyond the specific empirical setting. We find papers whose value is limited to one country, industry, or time period are routinely returned. A ReStud methodological-innovation readiness check can identify whether the package supports a top-five submission.
Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places ReStud among top-five economics journals globally. SciRev community data confirms 3-5 month first-decision windows.
Frequently asked questions
Submit through ReStud's manuscript portal at Oxford Academic. The journal is one of the top-five economics venues with a strong methodological emphasis. Pre-submission inquiries are not accepted. Manuscripts are screened by editors first; about 70-80% are desk-rejected. Submission fee is $200.
ReStud's acceptance rate runs ~5-7% with desk-rejection around 70-80%. The journal is among the top-five economics journals (with QJE, AER, JPE, Econometrica). Median time to first decision is 3-5 months.
Original economics research with methodological rigor: empirical microeconomics, theoretical economics, applied microeconomics, macroeconomics, behavioral economics, and quantitative economic history. ReStud has a particular reputation for methodologically innovative empirical work.
Most reasons: insufficient methodological innovation in empirical papers, weak identification strategy, incremental theoretical advances, narrow specialist focus without broader economics relevance, or cover letter that overstates contribution.
Sources
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.