Jme Contribution Framing

---
name: jme-contribution-framing
description: Use when sharpening the "what is new and why it matters for macro/policy" claim of a Journal of Monetary Economics (JME) manuscript — turning a result into a first-order monetary-economics contribution that clears a single-blind, two-referee, "up or out" process.
---

# Contribution Framing (jme-contribution-framing)

## When to trigger

- The result exists but the "so what for monetary economics / policy?" is undersold
- The abstract and intro list findings without a single sharp contribution claim
- You need the pitch to survive a desk screen and convince two expert referees
- You want the framing to justify an R&R invitation (the editor's ~50% publication-likelihood bar)

## Why framing is high-stakes at JME

JME has a **distinctive selection funnel**. A first-round decision is **reject or revise-and-resubmit**, and editors invite a resubmission **only when they judge at least a 50% likelihood of ultimate publication** — so an R&R is a strong signal, and a sharp contribution claim is what tips a borderline paper into that bucket. The resubmission is then **"up or out"**: it ends in acceptance or rejection, with no second R&R round. Because review is **single anonymized** with a **minimum of two reviewers**, your framing has to convince specialists who can see your name and will judge the marginal contribution directly.

The contribution should be legible to a macroeconomist or central banker, not just to the narrow sub-field. A JME contribution usually takes one of these shapes: a **new identified fact** about how a shock or policy transmits; a **new mechanism** in a quantitative model that changes a policy conclusion; a **new quantitative magnitude** that overturns or refines a prior estimate; or a **policy counterfactual** that a model now makes credible.

## Framing checklist

- [ ] The contribution is stated in **one sentence** an editor could quote in a decision letter
- [ ] It is positioned as **first-order** for monetary economics / macro, not a marginal tweak
- [ ] The **policy or aggregate lesson** is explicit
- [ ] Empirical and theoretical contributions are each named (JME values both)
- [ ] The claim does **not exceed** what the identification or model supports
- [ ] The abstract (≤100 words, not starting with "This paper" or "We") carries this claim

## Anti-patterns

- A laundry list of findings with no headline contribution
- Over-claiming a global/structural lesson from a local empirical estimate
- Framing the paper for one narrow sub-field when JME wants the broad macro relevance
- Burying the contribution on page 6 instead of in the first paragraph and the abstract

## Output format

```
【Contribution】one quotable sentence
【Type】new fact / new mechanism / new magnitude / policy counterfactual
【Policy lesson】one line
【Within design limits?】Y/N (no over-claiming)
【Abstract-ready?】≤100 words, no "This paper"/"We" start? Y/N
【Next step】jme-identification-strategy
```