Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

aeri-topic-selection

Use when deciding whether a project is the ONE crisp, important, well-identified insight that an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript requires, rather than a multi-result paper for AER or a field paper for the AEJ family. Tests single-insight fit; it does not run the analysis.

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

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Topic Selection — Single-Insight Fit (aeri-topic-selection)

When to trigger

  • A project has a strong main result but also two or three secondary results
  • Unsure whether to send to AER: Insights, AER, or an AEJ field journal
  • The draft is creeping past the word cap because there is more than one idea
  • A result feels surprising and clean but you are unsure it is "important enough"

The AER: Insights bar: one idea, AER-level importance, short

AER: Insights publishes short, self-contained papers built around a single important, well-executed idea. The decision is not "is this good?" but "is there exactly ONE crisp, surprising, well-identified insight that can stand alone in a short paper at AER-level importance?" Three filters:

  1. Single-insight test. State the paper in one sentence with one headline object (one estimate, one theorem, one fact, one method-changes-the-answer result). If you need "and" to describe the contribution, you likely have an AER paper or two AER: Insights papers, not one.
  2. Importance test. The single insight must clear AER-level general interest — a non-specialist economist should care. AER: Insights is short, not minor; a small or incremental result is a reject regardless of length.
  3. Self-containment test. The whole argument — setup, identification, headline result, the one or two checks that matter — must fit in ≤7,000 words (minus 200 per exhibit, ≤5 exhibits) with everything else in the online appendix. If the core argument cannot be made short, it is not an AER: Insights paper.

Where it goes if it is NOT AER: Insights

SymptomBetter venue
Multiple inter-dependent results that need each otherAER (long, multi-result flagship)
One result but field-specific, not general interestAEJ: Applied / Micro / Macro / Policy
Incremental / a robustness note on existing worka field journal or a comment
Pure methods with no substantive payoff in a short papera methods/econometrics journal

Sharpening a candidate into a single insight

  • Pick the headline. Of the results you have, which ONE is most surprising and most cleanly identified? Make that the paper; demote the rest.
  • Cut, do not summarize. Secondary results become appendix material or a future paper — not a compressed in-text paragraph.
  • Name the surprise. AER: Insights rewards a result that overturns or sharply refines a prior belief; write the prior you are correcting.
  • Confirm identification early (aeri-identification) — a clean insight with a shaky design is not publishable short, because there is no room to defend a weak design.

Common AER: Insights archetypes (and what makes each "one insight")

ArchetypeThe single insight is…Failure mode
One clean causal estimatea single headline effect from a credible designreporting every heterogeneity split in-text
A striking new fact / measurementone important fact a non-specialist did not knowa descriptive paper with no single takeaway
A sharp theory resultone surprising theorem / impossibilitya general framework with the result as a corollary
A method that flips an answerthe substantive answer it changes, in few pagesthe method shown without a substantive payoff

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A fictional project has (a) a clean RCT effect of posted wages on women's applications, (b) a heterogeneity split by occupation, and (c) a structural extension on wage offers. The AER: Insights paper is (a) alone — one surprising, general-interest, cleanly identified effect. (b) and (c) go to the Supplemental Appendix or a separate paper. Compressing all three into one short paper would be a "mini-AER" and likely a reject; the discipline is to make (a) the entire paper and defend it superbly in few pages.

Going-or-not-going decision

If you cannot pass all three filters — single insight, AER-level importance, self-containment — the honest move is to route elsewhere (AER for multi-result, an AEJ for field interest) rather than force-fit. The fast, no-R&R process (aeri-referee-strategy) punishes a borderline fit with a quick reject.

Checklist

  • The paper is stated in one sentence with a single headline object
  • The insight clears AER-level general-interest importance (not just length-appropriate)
  • A clear prior belief is named that the result overturns or sharply refines
  • The full argument plausibly fits the cap with secondary material in the appendix
  • Venue checked vs. AER (multi-result) and AEJ (field) — AER: Insights chosen deliberately
  • Identification is clean enough to defend in a short paper

Anti-patterns

  • A "mini-AER": one main result plus several supporting results kept in-text
  • A correct but incremental result pitched as short-because-small
  • A field-interest result with no general-interest hook
  • Splitting one idea across two thin papers, or fusing two ideas into one over-cap paper
  • Choosing AER: Insights for speed when the idea genuinely needs AER's length

Output format

【One-sentence insight】<single headline object>
【Importance】why a non-specialist cares (general interest, AER-level)
【Prior overturned】<belief the result corrects>
【Fits short format?】core argument under cap, rest to appendix? [Y/N]
【Venue check】AER: Insights vs AER vs AEJ — chosen because […]
【Next step】aeri-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