本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

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).

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

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

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する