| name | aeri-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when positioning the contribution of an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript against the closest published work in one or two tight paragraphs. Stakes the gap concisely; it does not write the full literature review (there is no room for one). |
Literature Positioning — Compressed (aeri-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The contribution relative to the nearest paper is fuzzy or oversold
- A draft contains a multi-page literature review that the format cannot afford
- A referee might say "this is already known" or "this is a known method applied"
- You need to show the single insight is new without spending the word budget
The short-format positioning problem
AER: Insights gives you no room for a survey. Positioning must be done in one or two paragraphs that do exactly one job: pin the single closest prior result and state precisely what your one insight adds, corrects, or overturns. Because the whole paper is one idea, the literature task is narrow — locate that idea on the frontier, not map the whole field. The word budget is shared with everything else (≤7,000 words minus exhibits), so every citation must earn its place.
How to position in two paragraphs
- Name the closest paper(s), not a field. Identify the one or two papers a referee will immediately think of. Engage them directly: what did they establish, and what did they leave open or get wrong that your insight resolves?
- State the delta as a single clause. "We show X, where the closest prior work showed only Y / assumed Z / left W unresolved." The delta must match the one-sentence insight from
aeri-topic-selection.
- Defend novelty without inflation. AER: Insights referees punish both "this is already known" and overclaiming. Calibrate: claim exactly the marginal contribution, no more.
- Push the broad literature to the appendix or footnotes. Tangential citations and related-strands discussion go to a footnote or the Supplemental Appendix, never an in-text section.
Decision table: what kind of gap is it?
| Gap type | One-line framing | Watch-out |
|---|
| New result on an open question | "It was unknown whether …; we show …" | be sure it is genuinely open, not just unaddressed-by-you |
| Overturning a believed result | "Prior work concluded X; with [better design/data] we find not-X" | engage the prior paper's design fairly |
| Sharpening / separating channels | "Prior work left A and B bundled together; we isolate ..." | show the separation is the contribution |
| Method that changes the answer | "Applying [method] to [setting] reverses the standard conclusion" | the payoff, not the method, is the contribution |
Where positioning lives in the short paper
In a long paper the literature has its own section; in AER: Insights it should live inside the
introduction — typically the second and third sentences after the headline result
(aeri-writing-style). The reader meets the result, then immediately
learns what was believed before and what your one insight changes. A standalone "Related Literature"
section is a smell that the paper is too long or trying to be an AER paper.
The general-interest test for citations
Because AER: Insights is general-interest, the closest paper you confront should be one a broad
audience recognizes, not only the three specialists in your subfield. If the only papers you can position
against are field-internal, reconsider whether the venue is AER: Insights or an AEJ field journal
(aeri-topic-selection). Position against the most visible prior
claim your result touches; cite the field-internal antecedents in a footnote.
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A fictional paper finds that revealing posted wages closes part of the gender application gap. A weak
positioning cites "a large literature on gender gaps" and a dozen papers. A strong AER: Insights
positioning is two sentences: "The application gap is widely attributed to preferences or confidence
(closest paper: X); we show a simple information change moves it substantially, implying the gap is
partly an information friction." One named antecedent, one delta clause, no survey.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A multi-page "Related Literature" section the word cap cannot afford
- Citing a field instead of confronting the one paper closest to yours
- Overclaiming ("first to …") when a near-identical result exists
- Hedged positioning that leaves the referee unsure what is new
- Spending words on strands the single insight does not touch
Output format
【Closest prior work】<1–2 papers> — what they established / left open
【Delta clause】"We show ..., where prior work only ... / assumed ... / left ... unresolved"
【Novelty calibration】exact marginal contribution (no over/underclaim)
【Where the rest goes】footnotes / Supplemental Appendix
【Next step】aeri-identification (or aeri-theory-model for a theory paper)
