Jue Writing Style

Writing Style (jue-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The introduction explains the data and method before it says what is spatially new
• The abstract reads like a generic applied-micro paper — space could be deleted and it would still parse
• A reader cannot state the urban mechanism in one sentence after the intro
• The policy or theory implication is asserted at the end rather than threaded through
• The draft uses spatial-econometrics jargon where a plain mechanism sentence would land harder

The JUE intro arc

JUE referees read the first page to decide whether the paper is a real urban-economics contribution. A JUE introduction should, in order:

1. Open with the spatial question and why it matters for cities, housing, or local policy — not with a literature gap.
2. Name the spatial mechanism in one sentence a non-specialist urban economist would grasp (capitalization, agglomeration spillover, sorting, congestion, market access).
3. State the identifying variation plainly — the boundary, the shift-share, the policy rollout — and why it is credible against sorting and spillovers.
4. Give the headline magnitude in interpretable units (a % capitalization, an elasticity), early, so the reader knows the answer.
5. Place the contribution against the right strand in 2–3 sentences (handoff from jue-literature-positioning).
6. Preview the equilibrium reading — what the estimate means once agents re-sort, and the policy implication.

House voice

• Spatially grounded, mechanism-first. Lead with the economics of place; let the method serve the mechanism, not the reverse.
• Concrete geography. Name the cities, the corridor, the policy — readers of an urban journal expect institutional texture, not abstract "regions."
• Magnitudes over significance. "Prices rose 4.5%" beats "the coefficient is significant"; JUE cares what the number means for welfare and policy.
• Honest about the local estimand. Say plainly that a boundary or LATE estimate is local; do not let the prose imply a city-wide or national effect.
• Plain over jargon. Use "households sort across neighborhoods" rather than dense spatial-econometrics phrasing where the plain sentence is clearer.

Section discipline

• Abstract: spatial question → design → headline magnitude → implication, in ~150 words; references in full if cited (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 for exact limits).
• Data section: make the geography legible — units, coverage, how locations are defined and matched.
• Results: lead each table with the mechanism it tests, not "Table 3 shows."
• Conclusion: the equilibrium and policy reading, with the local-estimand caveat restated.

Checklist

• First paragraph states the spatial question and why it matters, not a literature gap
• The urban mechanism is stated in one plain sentence
• The identifying variation and its credibility (vs sorting/spillovers) are in the intro
• The headline magnitude appears early, in interpretable units
• The local nature of the estimand is honest throughout the prose
• Geography is concrete (named cities/policies), not abstract "regions"
• Abstract follows question → design → magnitude → implication
• The abstract collapses if spatial words are deleted (the fit test passes)
• The policy reading is earned by the estimand, not a bolted-on closing paragraph

Anti-patterns

• An intro that leads with method and data before the spatial mechanism
• An abstract from which "space" could be deleted with no loss — the fit tell
• Reporting significance instead of an interpretable magnitude
• Prose that lets a local boundary/LATE estimate read as a city-wide effect
• Abstract "regions" with no institutional or geographic texture
• Dense spatial-econometrics jargon substituting for a clear mechanism sentence