| name | jeea-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when the contribution of a Journal of the European Economic Association (JEEA) manuscript relative to the frontier is fuzzy, oversold, or undersold. Stakes the marginal contribution for a general-interest readership; it does not fix identification, the model, or prose. |
Literature Positioning (jeea-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The "we are the first to…" claim is fragile or unverifiable
- A referee could name three close papers you have not distinguished from
- The contribution paragraph lists what you do, not what is new
- The paper reads as incremental relative to an obvious recent reference
The JEEA positioning bar
JEEA is a general-interest journal, so positioning must convince a broad reader — not just subfield specialists — that the marginal contribution is real and consequential. Two failure modes are fatal here: (1) the contribution is genuine but framed for insiders, so a general-interest co-editor cannot see it; (2) the contribution is overstated relative to a close paper a referee will instantly recall. Position against the frontier, name the closest 2–3 papers explicitly, and state in one sentence what your paper establishes that none of them does.
Positioning moves
- Locate the frontier, not a strawman. Cite the strongest, most recent work on the question; positioning against a dated or weak paper invites a desk objection.
- Name the delta. Finish the sentence "Relative to [closest paper], we are the first to show that …" with something a referee cannot already point to.
- Separate three kinds of novelty: (i) a new question/answer, (ii) a new identification of an old question, (iii) a new theoretical result/mechanism. JEEA rewards (i) and (iii) most; (ii) must be paired with a substantive payoff.
- Travel test. State why the contribution matters beyond the immediate literature — the general-interest lesson — so the paper is not "one more entry" in a niche.
- Credit honestly. Acknowledge what close papers got right; over-claiming against them is the single most common referee complaint.
Contribution paragraph template
- The question and why it is open at the frontier.
- The closest 2–3 papers and exactly what they leave unresolved.
- What this paper establishes that they do not (the delta, in one sentence).
- Why that delta matters to a general economics reader (the travel test).
- The scope: what the contribution does not claim.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- "First to study X" when a quick search finds a close predecessor (instant credibility loss)
- Positioning against a weak strawman instead of the genuine frontier
- A contribution list ("we do A, B, C") with no statement of what is new
- Burying the delta under a literature review that reads as a survey
- Over-claiming a marginal identification tweak as a conceptual breakthrough
- A literature review padded to demonstrate reading rather than to locate the gap
Positioning across JEEA's breadth
Because JEEA is field-agnostic, the kind of frontier you position against differs by paper type, and a general-interest co-editor expects you to engage the right one:
- Theory paper: position against the closest models, not the closest applications; the delta is a result, a weaker assumption, or a unifying mechanism (route to
jeea-theory-model).
- Applied micro / development: position against the closest estimates of the same parameter; the delta is usually a more credible design or a previously unmeasured margin (route to
jeea-identification).
- Macro / finance: position against both the empirical regularity and the model that rationalizes it; the delta often reconciles the two.
In every case the general-interest test is the same: a reader outside the subfield should grasp why the delta matters without already knowing the literature.
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A draft on minimum wages claims to be "the first causal estimate of employment effects." A referee instantly recalls a dozen close papers. The JEEA-grade revision names the three closest recent estimates, concedes what they established (small disemployment effects in their settings), and states the genuine delta in one sentence: "Relative to [X, Y, Z], we are the first to separate the wage-floor effect from the simultaneous benefit-schedule change, using a reform that moved only the floor." The travel test follows: the result tells any policymaker that bundled reforms have been misattributing effects. The contribution is now defensible against the very referees who know the literature best.
Output format
【Frontier papers】[closest 2–3, cited]
【Delta】"Relative to [X], we are the first to show that ___"
【Novelty type】question / identification / theory
【Travel test】why it matters to a general reader
【Scope limit】what we do NOT claim
【Next step】jeea-identification or jeea-theory-model
