Empirical economics papers follow a fairly standardized structure — and for good reason. That structure helps reviewers and readers locate the information they need quickly: what’s the question, what’s the data, what’s the method, and what did you find. Deviating from it without good reason tends to frustrate reviewers rather than impress them. Here’s how each section should function.
Title and Abstract
Your title should be specific enough that a reader in your subfield knows immediately what the paper is about. The abstract should state, in plain language, the research question, data and method, main finding, and contribution — typically in 150–250 words.
Introduction
The introduction should answer three questions in order: What is the research question and why does it matter? What does this paper find? What does it contribute that existing literature doesn’t already offer? Many strong papers fail here simply by burying the contribution too deep into the section.
Literature Review
Rather than a chronological list of prior work, an effective literature review is organized around the debate or gap your paper addresses. It should build toward your contribution, not just summarize what’s already known.
Theoretical Framework (If Applicable)
If your paper is grounded in a formal or informal theoretical model, this section should make the model’s assumptions and predictions explicit enough that a reader can see exactly what your empirical work is testing.
Data and Methodology
This is where rigor is judged most closely. Be explicit about data sources, sample construction, variable definitions, and your identification strategy. If you’re using a quasi-experimental method (difference-in-differences, instrumental variables, regression discontinuity), state clearly why it’s appropriate for your setting and what assumptions it requires.
Results
Present results in a logical sequence — typically baseline findings first, followed by robustness checks and heterogeneity analysis. Tables and figures should be self-explanatory; a reader should be able to understand a table’s finding without re-reading the text.
Discussion and Robustness
Address alternative explanations for your findings and demonstrate that your results hold under different specifications. This section is often what separates a “revise and resubmit” from an outright rejection — reviewers want to see that you’ve stress-tested your own conclusions.
Conclusion
Summarize the key finding, restate the contribution, and be honest about limitations. A strong conclusion also points toward specific, concrete directions for future research rather than vague statements about “further study.”
A Structural Checklist
- Does the introduction state the contribution within the first page?
- Does the literature review build an argument rather than list papers?
- Is the identification strategy explicit and justified?
- Are tables and figures interpretable on their own?
- Does the discussion address obvious alternative explanations?
Following this structure doesn’t guarantee acceptance, but it removes a whole category of avoidable friction between your paper and its reviewers.
For a widely used reference on economics-specific writing and structural conventions, the American Economic Association’s style guide is a useful benchmark, even for authors submitting elsewhere.
Once your paper is structured and polished, check it against the journal’s scope and submit it through the paper submission page.