| name | worlddev-workflow |
|---|---|
| description | Use when deciding which worlddev-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for a World Development (WD) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills. |
This is the router. It tells you which worlddev- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at World Development (WD) — the multidisciplinary development-studies journal published by Elsevier (founded 1973, monthly, ISSN 0305-750X / online 1873-5991). WD's defining feature, and the thing every routing decision must respect, is that it is methodologically pluralist: it publishes econometric and experimental work, but equally qualitative case studies, process tracing, ethnography, participatory methods, political-economy analysis, and policy/practice papers. The shared bar is real-world development relevance in low- and middle-income contexts — poverty, inequality, livelihoods, institutions, governance, aid and NGOs, agriculture and food security, health and education, conflict, gender, and environment-development.
The single biggest router mistake is treating WD as if it were an econometrics journal. It is not. Route a regression-discontinuity paper and a multi-site qualitative study through the same chain, but enter the chain at different links and apply a different bar for "credible evidence." Editors as of 2026: Jampel Dell'Angelo and Angelika Rettberg (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Review is double-anonymized; submission is via Elsevier Editorial Manager; abstract ≤250 words, 3–6 keywords.
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a WD-targeted draft
- A draft is ping-ponging between framing, evidence, exhibits, and submission checks
- The contribution is unclear relative to siblings (JDE, WBER, JDS, EDCC)
- A WD decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
- A quantitatively-trained author has a qualitative or mixed-methods paper and is unsure how WD will judge it
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Scope/audience/outlet fit uncertain; is this WD or a sibling? | worlddev-topic-selection |
| Contribution vs. the development literature is fuzzy or undersold | worlddev-literature-positioning |
| Causal claim rests on OLS+controls; or a qual/mixed claim lacks an inference logic | worlddev-identification |
| The conceptual/analytical framework (development theory) is loose or decorative | worlddev-theory-model |
| Results may be specification-, sample-, measurement-, or interpretation-sensitive | worlddev-robustness |
| Exhibits dense; significance asterisks present; maps/qual evidence underused | worlddev-tables-figures |
| Prose is jargon-heavy and does not reach a multidisciplinary, policy audience | worlddev-writing-style |
| Data/code deposit, qualitative-transparency, or anonymization for review | worlddev-replication-package |
| Likely double-anonymized referee objections should be pre-empted | worlddev-referee-strategy |
| Close to submission; need the Editorial Manager preflight | worlddev-submission |
| An R&R or reject-and-resubmit arrived; need a response-letter plan | worlddev-rebuttal |
worlddev-topic-selection— lock the development question and WD-vs-sibling fitworlddev-literature-positioning— stake the contribution across disciplinesworlddev-identification— causal design OR the inference logic of a qual/mixed paperworlddev-theory-model— the conceptual/analytical framework that organizes the evidenceworlddev-robustness— sensitivity (quant) or trustworthiness/triangulation (qual)worlddev-tables-figures— exhibits, maps, and qualitative displays without asterisksworlddev-writing-style— reach the multidisciplinary reader (abstract + intro last)worlddev-replication-package— Elsevier data policy + qualitative transparencyworlddev-referee-strategy— anticipate double-anonymized objectionsworlddev-submission— Editorial Manager preflightworlddev-rebuttal— after the decision letter
Writing-style is late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the framework and evidence settle.
The binding constraint differs by what kind of paper this is. Read the archetype, then enter at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| Quantitative causal (DID, IV, RDD, RCT) | credible design + clustering at the right level | worlddev-identification |
| Qualitative (cases, process tracing, ethnography) | inference logic + transparency, not "more N" | worlddev-identification → worlddev-theory-model |
| Mixed-methods | integration — how strands actually combine, not run in parallel | worlddev-theory-model → worlddev-identification |
| Political-economy / institutional analysis | conceptual framework doing real analytical work | worlddev-theory-model |
| Policy / practice / aid-effectiveness | "so what for whom" + external validity | worlddev-topic-selection → worlddev-writing-style |
- Treating WD as interchangeable with Journal of Development Economics (rigorous development econometrics) — WD values relevance and methodological breadth, not only identification rigor
- Treating WD as World Bank Economic Review (Bank-affiliated, more economics-centric) or Journal of Development Studies (interdisciplinary but more political/sociological framing)
- Routing a qualitative paper as if "weak identification" were the problem when the real problem is an unstated inference logic
- Polishing prose before the framework, evidence hierarchy, and contribution are stable
- Letting an appendix carry claims the main text must establish
【Target】World Development (WD)
【Archetype】quant-causal / qualitative / mixed / political-economy / policy-practice
【Current bottleneck】fit / contribution / design / framework / evidence / exhibits / style / replication / submission / revision
【Next skill】<one worlddev-* skill>
【Reason】why this is the binding constraint for THIS archetype
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 待核实