rfs-topic-selection

name	rfs-topic-selection
description	Use when the research question or contribution is the bottleneck for a The Review of Financial Studies (RFS) manuscript. Pressure-tests novelty-plus-rigor fit and drafts the contribution claim; does NOT design the empirics or position the literature in detail.

Topic Selection & Novelty Fit (rfs-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• The idea feels incremental, derivative, or "me-too"
• You can describe a method or dataset but not the new question it answers
• You are unsure whether the topic clears RFS's novelty bar (vs. a field journal)
• A coauthor says "this is clean but is it interesting enough for RFS?"

The RFS fit test: novelty AND rigor

RFS prizes both. Score the idea on both axes before investing in empirics.

Novelty axis — what is genuinely new? At least one must be a strong "yes":

1. New question — a first-order finance question not previously framed this way.
2. New mechanism / theory — a model that reorganizes how we think about an old fact.
3. New data — a dataset that lets you see something previously invisible.
4. New method — a credibly better tool for an important question.

Rigor axis — can it be established cleanly? The answer must survive rfs-identification and rfs-robustness. Novelty without a credible research design is a desk-reject risk; rigor on a stale question is a field-journal paper.

RFS-only consideration — the Registered Reports route. RFS was the first journal in finance/economics to offer Registered Reports (pre-results review; G. Andrew Karolyi's 2014 editorial "Kick-Starting the Review Process," RFS 27(2)). If your question is important but the answer is genuinely uncertain — exactly the case where a "null" result would still be informative — consider the Registered Report path: the design is reviewed and granted in-principle acceptance before results are known, removing the incentive to manufacture significance. This is a topic-selection lever JF and JFE do not offer. A question whose value depends on the sign of the result is a weak Registered Report; a question whose value holds regardless of the answer is ideal.

RFS-favored frontiers (durable, verify current calls for papers)

RFS has been notably open to:

• Intermediary asset pricing & liquidity spirals — balance-sheet constraints, dealers, funding. RFS published the canonical Brunnermeier–Pedersen (2009) "Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity" (RFS 22(6)).
• Cross-sectional asset pricing & anomaly digestion — e.g., Hou, Xue, and Zhang (2015) "Digesting Anomalies: An Investment Approach" (RFS 28(3), the q-factor model) and Bollerslev, Tauchen, and Zhou (2009) "Expected Stock Returns and Variance Risk Premia" (RFS 22(11)).
• Fintech / digital finance — platforms, marketplace lending, crypto market microstructure, AI in finance.
• Climate / sustainable finance — physical and transition risk, ESG pricing, green capital allocation.
• Household & behavioral finance — consumption, mortgages, retail investors, belief formation.
• Theory tightly integrated with empirics — RFS welcomes structural and model-driven papers, not just reduced-form.

This is a durable orientation, not a fixed list. Check the RFS site for current special issues, Registered Report calls, and editor priorities before anchoring a framing on them.

Contribution claim template

Draft three to five explicit contribution sentences for the introduction:

1. The question: "We ask whether / how [X affects Y] in [setting]." (Make the novelty visible here.)
2. The wedge: "Prior work [Author, year] established [A] but could not [B] because [data/identification gap]."
3. What we do: "Using [new data / new design / new model], we [show / estimate / prove] ..."
4. What we find: "[Quantified result with magnitude], robust to [...]."
5. Why it matters: "This changes how we think about [theory / policy / practice]."

Checklist

• At least one novelty axis is a strong "yes," stated in one sentence
• The question is first-order for finance, not a narrow sub-case
• A credible identification or asset-pricing strategy exists (sketch it now)
• The contribution is not "we re-run a known design on a new sample"
• Theory and empirics are mutually reinforcing, not bolted together
• You can name the 2–3 RFS/JF/JFE papers this most directly extends or overturns
• If the answer's value does not hinge on its sign, the Registered Report route was considered

Anti-patterns

• A clean but stale question — survives rigor, fails novelty ("me-too" paper).
• A flashy new dataset with no question — novelty as decoration.
• Over-claiming a "new method" that is a minor variant of an existing estimator.
• Hiding the contribution behind data description.
• Chasing a trendy frontier (e.g. crypto) without a finance question that matters.

Output format

【Question】one-sentence new question
【Novelty axis】new-question / new-mechanism / new-data / new-method (which + why)
【Closest prior work】[Author year @ JF/JFE/RFS] → our delta
【Rigor sketch】likely identification / asset-pricing strategy
【Registered Report?】value independent of result sign → consider Stage 1 route
【RFS fit verdict】strong / borderline / field-journal
【Next step】rfs-literature-positioning