Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

aeja-topic-selection

Use when deciding whether an applied-micro project belongs at the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) rather than AER, AEJ: Economic Policy, or a field journal, and what its central question should be. Sets venue fit and question scope; it does not design the identification (see aeja-identification).

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Topic Selection & Venue Fit (aeja-topic-selection)

When to trigger

  • A project is empirically promising but you are unsure it is "AEJ: Applied-shaped"
  • The question reads like a policy evaluation, a field-specialist note, or a top-general-interest swing — and you need to place it
  • Several possible framings of the same dataset exist and you must pick the one that lands here
  • Reviewers (or a co-author) say "this is fine but why this journal?"

The AEJ: Applied fit test

AEJ: Applied wants empirical applied microeconomics where a credible causal research design answers a substantive economic question of broad applied-micro interest — above a pure field journal but more specialized than AER. Use this decision table to place the project.

Signal in your projectLikely fit
Clean identification + a question labor/dev/health/ed/public economists all care aboutAEJ: Applied (core)
Same design but the contribution is mainly a policy verdict / program ROI framinglean AEJ: Economic Policy
Genuinely general-interest, agenda-setting, methodologically ambitious, longaim AER first
Contribution is field-internal (only sub-field specialists will cite it)a field journal (JHE / JOLE / JDE)
New estimator with a toy applicationEconometrica / REStud / JoE, not AEJ: Applied

AEJ: Applied is empirical-first: theory appears to interpret and discipline the estimate, not to lead. A descriptive or measurement paper can fit if the question is sharp and the measurement is the contribution — but it must not overclaim causality.

Sharpening the question (do this before writing anything)

  1. One-sentence question with the causal object named: "What is the effect of X on Y for population P, identified by design D?"
  2. Why broad applied-micro readers care — name two subfields beyond your own that should cite it.
  3. What the headline number will be (a magnitude with units, even if approximate) — if you cannot imagine the sentence "we find X raises Y by ___," the question is not yet AEJ: Applied-shaped.
  4. The credible-design seed — which design (RCT / DID / RD / IV / shift-share) makes the estimate believable; if none, the topic is not ready (route to aeja-identification).

Checklist

  • One-sentence causal (or sharply descriptive) question with a named estimand
  • Venue placed against the table above; reason it is AEJ: Applied and not AER / AEJ: Policy / a field journal written in one line
  • Two subfields beyond your own that will cite it, named
  • An imaginable headline sentence with a magnitude and units
  • A candidate research design that could make the estimate credible
  • JEL codes drafted (required at submission) reflecting the cross-field appeal

Anti-patterns

  • A field-internal contribution dressed up as general — desk-reject risk for "fit"
  • A pure policy-ROI framing that reads as AEJ: Economic Policy
  • An ambitious agenda paper that is really an AER swing sent to AEJ: Applied as a hedge (or vice versa)
  • "Interesting dataset, no question" — data-availability is not a contribution
  • Implying causality from a design that cannot support it just to clear the bar

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A researcher has linked administrative tax and education records for one country and wants to "study inequality." That is a dataset, not a question. Working through the fit test: the cleanest variation in the data is a school-finance reform that changed per-pupil spending at a sharp formula threshold — an RD. The question becomes "what is the effect of marginal school spending on adult earnings, identified by the funding-formula discontinuity?" Two subfields beyond education (labor and public) will cite it; the imaginable headline is "a $1,000 increase in per-pupil spending raises adult earnings by ~___%." Now it is AEJ: Applied-shaped — and clearly not an AER agenda paper or an AEJ: Policy program verdict.

Sibling-placement quick test

  • Would a non-specialist applied economist find the question interesting, not just the finding? → AEJ: Applied
  • Is the deliverable a policy recommendation / cost-benefit verdict? → lean AEJ: Economic Policy
  • Is the ambition field-defining and the design unusually novel? → try AER first
  • Will only sub-field specialists ever cite it? → a field journal

Output format

【Question】one sentence, estimand + population named
【Venue verdict】AEJ: Applied because [not AER: ___] [not AEJ: Policy: ___] [not field: ___]
【Cross-field appeal】subfields that will cite: [..., ...]
【Headline (anticipated)】"X raises/lowers Y by ~___ (units)"
【Design seed】RCT / DID / RD / IV / shift-share / descriptive
【JEL draft】[codes]
【Next step】aeja-literature-positioning

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill