ectheory-review-process — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ectheory-review-process (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
ET uses single-anonymous peer review: "the author does not know the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers know the identity of the author." Practical implications:
visible to referees. Self-citation can be in natural voice, but argue the contribution on merit.
(Guggenberger, Su, Sun), succeeding founding editor Phillips; the program now includes invited papers with discussions and themed special issues.
contributions (must not exceed 50 pages; overflow → online Supplement).
(typically <20 pages, often ~15).
opened with Phillips interviewing Denis Sargan). Invited only — not author-submitted.
assumption secretly assuming the conclusion?
actually established, or sketched past?
ectheory-literature-positioning.)
Pre-empt these: tighten assumptions, fill proof gaps, and add the boundary-case simulation before a referee forces it — at a theory journal a single unproven step can sink the paper.
Before a referee sees it, the handling editor screens the manuscript for whether a general, proved, foundational result is present, in ET's rigorous limit-theory tradition.
| Screen item | Survives | Likely quick reject |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the result | A theorem with explicit limiting law | An applied estimate with a theory veneer |
| Generality | Moves the result along a known dimension | A relabelled corollary of standard theory |
| Proof completeness | Hard step proved or routed to Supplement | A visible gap at the delicate step |
| Genre | Submitted Article/Miscellanea | Targeting the invited ET Interview |
For a new limit theory for a nonstationary estimator, read adversarially as the referee will: they (1) check whether the dependence condition is primitive or hides the conclusion; (2) ask whether the o_p(1) bound at the uniformity step is uniform in the local-to-unity parameter or only pointwise; (3) verify the normalizing rate matches the claimed limit; (4) ask whether the Monte Carlo visits the near-unit-root neighborhood; (5) ask "is this the i.i.d. special case of an existing FCLT?" Pre-empt all five — add the uniformity lemma, the boundary-spanning simulation, and a remark naming the prior result you generalize. The fixes: a proof gap → isolate it as a lemma and prove it; a known special case → state the generality dimension up front (route ectheory-literature-positioning); an over-anonymized manuscript → restore identity, as ET review is single-anonymous.
Calibration anchor: editorial leadership moved on 1 January 2026 to three joint Editors-in-Chief (Guggenberger, Su, Sun) succeeding founding editor Phillips; expect demanding technical review, and treat any specific turnaround or acceptance figures as unverified unless confirmed on the journal's current pages.
【Review model】single-anonymous (reviewers see author)
【Article type】Article / Miscellanea
【Assumptions stress-tested】[Y/N]
【Proof gaps closed】[Y/N]
【Boundary simulations】added? [Y/N]
【Novelty over special cases】stated? [Y/N]
【Next step】ectheory-submission~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.