Instructions for Referees
If you received a referee request before July 1, 2021, do not try to submit it on Editorial Manager. If you received a request from Schwert, email the report to jfinecon@gmail.com. Do not use the old jfe@jfe.rochester.edu address. It no longer works. If you received a request from Hirshleifer, Kaniel, or Whited, use the upload link in the email request. If you cannot find the link, email the report to jfinecon@gmail.com.
The JFE aims to continue its rapid turnaround of manuscripts and to streamline the refereeing process. The JFE pays referees an honorarium to encourage a quick response. Most submissions will continue to have one referee, with multiple referees being reserved for those situations in which the editor needs extra advice.
While the level of polish of initial submissions has a high variance, and while some accepted manuscripts benefit greatly from substantive referee suggestions, referees will be encouraged to refrain from becoming anonymous coauthors. The following instructions, adapted from Chad Jones’ instructions to Econometrica referees, will be given to referees when soliciting their advice.
Referee reports should be divided into three sections: Summary, Essential Points, and Suggestions.
Referee reports should not be long. Two or three single-spaced pages should be enough for most manuscripts. The advice in Berk et al. (2017) should be helpful for referees in writing constructive reports.
Report Format Details
Summary
A brief summary of how you see the contribution of the manuscript. This part of the report is already standard.
Essential Points
For a revise-and-resubmit, the points that are essential for the authors to address if the manuscript is to be published in a top finance journal; for a rejection, the points that make the manuscript unpublishable. The list of essential revisions should include at most three items, and preferably fewer. If more are required, unless the topic is extremely novel and interesting, the manuscript should be rejected.
Suggestions
Everything else. This manuscript is the authors’, and the referee should not act as a shadow coauthor. Given the convex returns to publishing in our profession, authors want to write the best possible manuscript, and all of us can benefit from the suggestions of expert referees. However, the authors should have leeway to address these points as they see fit.