Use when deciding whether a macro paper fits the American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) rather than AER, J. Monetary Economics, RED, or AEJ: Applied. Tests the broad-interest macro bar and venue fit; it does not write the paper or fix identification.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
AEJ: Macro is the AEA's quarterly, broad-interest macro journal (founded 2009; one of four AEJs). The fit test has three legs:
A paper that has only two of three is usually a field paper or an AER paper, not AEJ: Macro.
| Signal | Better venue | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Result reshapes the general macro consensus; first-order, top-of-field | AER (or AER: Insights if short) | AEJ: Macro is high-quality but not the general-interest flagship |
| Deep, technical contribution mainly for monetary/business-cycle theorists | J. Monetary Economics | Field depth over breadth |
| Quantitative dynamic-GE methods paper for the macro-methods community | Review of Economic Dynamics (RED) | RED is the quantitative-dynamics field home |
| Micro-empirical paper that happens to touch macro aggregates | AEJ: Applied | Applied identification over macro mechanism |
| Pure macro theory with no quantification | Theoretical Economics / JET / RED | AEJ: Macro values quantitative discipline |
| Broad macro question + disciplined quantification + policy relevance | AEJ: Macro | The sweet spot |
【Macro question (1 sentence + quantity/units)】...
【Three-leg fit】broad interest? [Y/N] quantitative discipline? [Y/N] policy/mechanism? [Y/N]
【Tool the question demands】SVAR / LP / narrative / DSGE / HANK / structural / hybrid
【Venue verdict】AEJ: Macro vs. {AER / JME / RED / AEJ: Applied} + one-line why
【Audience】which general macro readers cite it
【Next step】aejmac-literature-positioning
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.