| name | aejmac-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when the contribution of an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript relative to the macro frontier is fuzzy, contested, or undersold. Frames the marginal contribution against quantitative-theory and identified-empirical literatures; it does not fix the identification or the model itself. |
Literature Positioning (aejmac-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The introduction cites many papers but never says what is new
- A referee could ask "how is this different from [the obvious prior paper]?" and you lack a one-line answer
- The paper sits between a theory literature and an empirical literature and the bridge is unclear
- The contribution is real but framed as incremental ("we extend X by adding Y")
The AEJ: Macro positioning bar
AEJ: Macro is a broad-interest macro journal, so positioning must locate the paper for a general macro reader, not only for the three people working on the exact model or shock series. Two literatures usually bound a macro paper, and you must place the contribution against both:
- the quantitative-theory frontier (DSGE / HANK / heterogeneous-agent / structural) — what does your model deliver that the canonical model cannot?
- the identified-empirical frontier (SVAR / local projections / narrative / proxy-VAR / micro-data macro) — what does your evidence pin down that prior designs left open?
A hybrid paper (model matched to identified evidence) must say why the combination answers a question neither side resolved alone — this is often the strongest AEJ: Macro contribution.
Positioning moves
Move 1 — Name the closest 2–3 papers, then the wedge
Do not list 30 citations. Name the 2–3 papers a referee would call "basically the same," and state in one sentence what your paper does that each cannot. The wedge should be a quantity, mechanism, or identification gain, not "a different dataset."
Move 2 — Place against both frontiers
- vs. theory frontier: "The canonical [RBC/NK/HANK] model predicts/assumes Z; we relax/measure Z and the macro implication changes by ___."
- vs. empirical frontier: "Prior [SVAR/LP] designs cannot separate channel A from channel B; our [narrative/high-frequency/sign-restriction] identification does."
Move 3 — State the contribution as a sentence with a quantity
"We show that [mechanism] accounts for [X%] of [aggregate], overturning/refining the prior view that ___." A magnitude makes the contribution legible to a general reader and to the AEA process.
Move 4 — Calibrate the claim
Say what the paper does not establish: the regime, sample, or country where the result holds, and what remains open. Over-claiming is the fastest path to a referee's "the contribution is oversold."
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A "literature wall" — long paragraphs of citations with no stated wedge
- Positioning only against the subfield, invisible to general macro readers (reads as a field paper, wrong for AEJ: Macro)
- "We are the first to…" claims that a single prior paper falsifies
- Framing the contribution as a method tweak rather than a macro answer
- Burying the contribution sentence on page 4 instead of paragraph 1–2 of the intro
Output format
【Nearest papers + wedge】1) ... 2) ... 3) ...
【Vs. theory frontier】what the model/structure adds
【Vs. empirical frontier】what the identification pins down
【Contribution sentence (with quantity)】...
【Scope / what it does NOT claim】...
【Next step】aejmac-identification (empirical) and/or aejmac-theory-model (quantitative)
