Use when the contribution-vs-frontier claim is fuzzy, oversold, or under-cited for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript spanning any field of economics. Sharpens the gap and the marginal contribution; it does not fix identification or prose.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eer-literature-positioning --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Eer Literature Positioning?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-eer-literature-positioning)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: eer-literature-positioning
description: Use when the contribution-vs-frontier claim is fuzzy, oversold, or under-cited for a European Economic Review (EER) manuscript spanning any field of economics. Sharpens the gap and the marginal contribution; it does not fix identification or prose.
---
# Literature Positioning (eer-literature-positioning)
## When to trigger
- The "what's new here" sentence is vague, defensive, or missing
- Reviewers say the contribution is "incremental" or "already known"
- The related-work section is a list of citations, not an argument
- You cannot name the 3–5 papers your result directly displaces or extends
## The EER positioning bar
EER is **general-interest across all of economics**, so the contribution must be legible to a reader **outside** your subfield while withstanding the scrutiny of those **inside** it. That means a two-layer positioning: (1) a **broad-interest hook** — why a generalist should care — and (2) a **precise frontier delta** — exactly which result you extend, overturn, or quantify, with the closest 3–5 papers named. Single-anonymized review means the **referees are likely the authors you cite**: be accurate and fair, neither dismissive nor over-deferential.
## Positioning moves
### 1. Locate the frontier precisely
- Name the **closest current papers** (not the founding classics) your result speaks to.
- For each, state in one clause **what they did** and **what they left open**.
- Distinguish your contribution from concurrent/working-paper work explicitly.
### 2. State the marginal contribution as a delta
- Use a "we are first to / we show that, unlike X, …" sentence that is **true and checkable**.
- Pick one primary contribution; relegate secondary ones to a short list.
- Tie the delta to the general-interest hook so breadth and novelty reinforce.
### 3. Position across fields where relevant
- EER readers cross fields: connect a macro result to its micro evidence, an IO result to its welfare reading, etc.
- A cross-field bridge is itself a breadth signal EER rewards.
### 4. Calibrate the claim
- Match the size of the claim to the strength of the design/theory (see `eer-identification`, `eer-theory-model`).
- Pre-empt "already known" by citing the near-miss and saying precisely how you differ.
## Checklist
- [ ] The 3–5 closest frontier papers are named, each with "did / left open"
- [ ] One primary marginal contribution stated as a checkable delta
- [ ] Broad-interest hook present and tied to the frontier delta
- [ ] Concurrent work acknowledged and distinguished
- [ ] Citations are fair and accurate (referees may be the cited authors)
- [ ] Claim size matches design/theory strength — no overselling
- [ ] At least one cross-field bridge where the result naturally travels
## Anti-patterns
- A related-work paragraph that lists citations without an argumentative gap
- Citing only 1990s classics and missing the live frontier the referees work on
- "First to study X" claims that a single search would falsify
- Dismissing the nearest competitor instead of crediting and differentiating it
- Burying the contribution so a generalist editor cannot find it before desk-screening
- Overselling a field-internal increment as a general-interest breakthrough
## Worked vignette (illustrative)
A public-finance paper estimates the incidence of a carbon tax. A weak positioning says "we contribute to the carbon-tax literature." An EER positioning says: "Closest are A (estimates incidence assuming fixed pass-through) and B (allows pass-through but ignores informal substitution); we relax both and show informal substitution shifts incidence toward poorer households by ~30% (illustrative) — a general lesson about how informal margins change the distributional reading of any consumption tax." Generalist hook (who bears taxes) + precise delta (relaxes two assumptions of named papers) + cross-field travel (any consumption tax).
## Output format
```
【Broad-interest hook】one sentence a generalist cares about
【Closest frontier】3–5 papers, each "did X / left open Y"
【Marginal contribution】the checkable delta (primary)
【Cross-field bridge】where the result travels
【Claim calibration】matched to design/theory strength? [Y/N]
【Next step】eer-identification (empirical) or eer-theory-model (theory)
```
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!