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.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aejmac-literature-positioning --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Aejmac Literature Positioning?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-aejmac-literature-positioning)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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
- [ ] The 2–3 nearest papers named, each with a one-line wedge
- [ ] Positioned against the quantitative-theory frontier (what the model adds)
- [ ] Positioned against the identified-empirical frontier (what the design pins down)
- [ ] Hybrid papers: why model + evidence beats either alone
- [ ] Contribution stated as one sentence with a quantity/mechanism
- [ ] Scope limits stated; no over-claiming beyond regime/sample
- [ ] Broad-interest framing: a general macroeconomist sees why it matters
## 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)
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!