AI Peer Review for Economics Manuscripts
In economics, identification is everything. ManuscriptMind pressure-tests your causal claims before a referee does.
Economics referees focus relentlessly on identification. They ask whether your instrument is plausibly exogenous and strong, whether your difference-in-differences design satisfies parallel trends, and whether your standard errors are clustered at the right level. A clever result with a weak identification strategy does not survive.
ManuscriptMind reviews your economics manuscript for the empirical issues that referees raise: credible identification, honest inference, and conclusions that do not outrun the design.
What reviewers flag in Economics papers
Weak or implausible identification
An instrument that is weak, or whose exclusion restriction is hard to defend, leaving the causal estimate open to obvious challenge.
Specification searching
Reporting the specification that produces significant stars without showing robustness across reasonable alternatives.
Clustering at the wrong level
Standard errors that ignore correlation within the level at which treatment varies, understating uncertainty.
Parallel-trends and pre-trend problems
Difference-in-differences designs presented without evidence that treated and control groups were on parallel paths before treatment.
External validity overreach
Generalizing a local treatment effect from one setting or experiment to broad policy conclusions.
Statistical pitfalls specific to Economics
- Weak instruments with first-stage strength left unreported
- Standard errors not clustered at the level of treatment assignment
- Multiple hypothesis testing across many outcomes without correction
- Inference concentrated just below conventional significance thresholds
Reporting guidelines we check against
What ManuscriptMind checks in your Economics manuscript
- Whether your identification strategy credibly supports a causal claim
- First-stage strength and the plausibility of exclusion restrictions
- Whether standard errors are clustered correctly
- Robustness of the headline result across specifications
- Whether external-validity claims match the evidence
Review your Economics manuscript before you submit
Upload your paper and get structured, severity-classified feedback in minutes. Methodology, statistics, and literature issues flagged with specific fixes. Free during beta.
Frequently asked questions
Does it evaluate identification strategies?
Yes. ManuscriptMind assesses whether your instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, or regression discontinuity design credibly supports the causal claims you make.
Will it flag weak instruments?
It looks for whether first-stage strength is reported and whether the exclusion restriction is defensible, two of the first things a referee checks.
Does it understand clustered standard errors?
Yes. It flags inference that ignores correlation at the level where treatment varies, a frequent and consequential referee objection.
Is my working paper kept confidential?
ManuscriptMind never trains on your manuscripts and deletes data on request.