Submission Preflight (jegeo-submission)

When to trigger

• "Submitting tomorrow" — last check before pressing submit on ScholarOne / Manuscript Central
• Unsure which files, limits, and declarations the OUP submission expects
• Confirming the manuscript is double-anonymous-clean and within JEG's length/abstract limits
• Deciding whether the paper fits the full-article or the shorter Emerging Voices lane

Process facts (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

• JEG is published by Oxford University Press; submission is through ScholarOne / Manuscript Central at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joeg (the OUP submission system).
• Review is double-anonymous: the author's identity must be removed from the manuscript, not just the title page — referees and authors are mutually anonymized.
• Length: standard articles are ≤8,000 words excluding references; over-length papers may be asked to cut or to move non-essential material to an online-only appendix, and this can be a condition for review. The Emerging Voices format is shorter (≈5,000 words, few exhibits) for tighter contributions.
• Abstract ≤100 words, followed by four keywords and JEL codes.
• ORCID iD is required for the submitting author.
• Data/code policy is encouragement-based and handled after acceptance (you are asked at acceptance whether associated data exist) — there is no pre-acceptance reproducibility archive.
• Exact figure specs, fee/open-access details, and any updated limits are 待核实 — confirm on the OUP author-instructions page before submitting.

Preflight checklist

Length & structure

• [ ] Main text ≤8,000 words excluding references; over-length material moved to an online appendix (待核实 exact limit)
• [ ] Main text is self-contained — the appendix supports, it does not carry a key claim
• [ ] Emerging Voices papers within that format's shorter limit (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)

Abstract, keywords, classification

• [ ] Abstract ≤100 words, contribution-first
• [ ] Four keywords + JEL codes included
• [ ] Title conveys the spatial economic contribution

Double-anonymous scrub

• [ ] Author names/affiliations removed from the manuscript body and headers
• [ ] Self-citations neutralized ("Author (2022)" not "In our 2022 paper on [city]")
• [ ] Acknowledgments/funding lines removed to a separate non-blinded file
• [ ] File metadata (PDF/Word author properties) scrubbed
• [ ] Maps/figures carry no identifying institutional watermarks

House style & exhibits

• [ ] No significance asterisks; standard errors / CIs reported; SE type (Conley/clustered) stated
• [ ] Spatial-model tables report direct vs. indirect effects; W and cutoff noted
• [ ] Maps make an argument, classification scheme stated, readable in grayscale
• [ ] Figure/table specs meet OUP requirements (待核实)

Files & declarations

• [ ] Anonymized main PDF/Word + separate title page with authors, affiliations, ORCID
• [ ] ORCID for the submitting author ready
• [ ] Online appendix file prepared if over length
• [ ] Confirmed the paper is not under review elsewhere; AI not listed as an author

The double-anonymous scrub deserves its own pass

Double-anonymous review is where economic-geography papers leak identity in ways authors miss, because the place is often a fingerprint. Beyond the usual name/affiliation removal:

• A single-region case study can de-anonymize the author by the study site plus their known field area — phrase self-citations and acknowledgments to avoid confirming it.
• Maps and figures sometimes carry institutional logos, GIS-license watermarks, or file-path captions exposing a username; export clean.
• PDF/Word document properties retain the author name by default — clear them.
• "Funded by [grant] to [PI]" in a footnote defeats the whole exercise; move it to the separate title page.

Treat this as a dedicated checklist pass, not a side effect of deleting the byline.

Anti-patterns

• Submitting with author identity still visible (defeats double-anonymous review — common desk-reject)
• Abstract over 100 words or missing keywords/JEL
• Over-length manuscript with no online-appendix plan
• Significance asterisks, or spatial-lag tables with no direct/indirect split
• Confusing JEG's post-acceptance data policy with a pre-acceptance archive and over- or under-preparing
• Treating ScholarOne for JEG like an Elsevier portal (it is OUP/Manuscript Central)

Output format

【Length】≤8,000 words excl. refs; appendix plan if over? [Y/N]
【Abstract】≤100 words + 4 keywords + JEL? [Y/N]
【Double-anonymous】body/citations/metadata/figures scrubbed? [Y/N]
【House style】no asterisks; SE type + W/cutoff; maps argue? [Y/N]
【ORCID + files】ORCID ready; anonymized MS + separate title page? [Y/N]
【Format】full article / Emerging Voices
【Next step】submit via mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joeg → jegeo-rebuttal on decision

Supplementary resources

• templates/checklist.md — submission self-check
• templates/manuscript_template.md — lightweight manuscript scaffold
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official OUP URLs and volatile facts