Red Topic Selection

---
name: red-topic-selection
description: Use to test whether a research question fits the Review of Economic Dynamics (RED) — a journal whose scope is defined by method and lens (dynamic, quantitative economics) rather than subfield. Helps decide if the paper studies a genuinely dynamic mechanism through a dynamic model, and whether it belongs at RED versus a generalist or a specialist outlet.
---

# Topic Selection for RED (red-topic-selection)

## When to trigger

- Deciding whether a paper is "a RED paper" before investing in it
- A dynamic-macro idea that could also go to a general-interest or a field journal
- Worried the question is too static, too purely empirical, or too applied-micro for RED's lens

## What RED actually wants

RED publishes meritorious original contributions to **dynamic economics**, and its scope is set by
**method/lens, not subfield**. In-scope work studies a mechanism through a **dynamic model** — and that
model may be **theoretical, computational, or empirical**:

- Dynamic general-equilibrium (DSGE) and heterogeneous-agent models
- Growth, business cycles, and economic fluctuations
- Labor dynamics, search/matching, human capital over the life cycle
- Monetary and fiscal policy in dynamic environments
- International macro and open-economy dynamics
- Any area of economics where the dynamics are the point and a dynamic model carries the argument

Crucially, **heavily computational quantitative work is squarely in scope** — RED is one of the natural
homes for simulation-intensive macro. The SED community (the people behind the SED Annual Meetings) is
the readership; pitch to them.

## Quick fit test

- [ ] Is the **dynamic mechanism** the core contribution (not incidental)?
- [ ] Does a **dynamic model** carry the argument (theory, computation, or empirical dynamics)?
- [ ] Would the **SED audience** see this as advancing dynamic economics?
- [ ] Is the contribution quantitative/structural rather than a one-off reduced-form correlation?

If the dynamics are cosmetic, or the paper is a static cross-section, RED is likely the wrong lens —
reframe around the dynamic mechanism or choose another venue.

## Anti-patterns

- Bolting a token dynamic equation onto an essentially static result
- Assuming RED only takes theory, or only takes empirics (it takes both, through a dynamic lens)
- Pitching to a generalist audience instead of the SED community

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — RED scope sources