Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› revacc-literature-positioning
revacc-literature-positioning
GitHub用于定位会计综述稿件在披露、盈余或估值文献中的边际贡献，避免空洞的差距发现。明确所属对话领域及与RAST及其他期刊的区别，确立前沿位置。
Trigger Scenarios
引言仅做差距发现而非融入对话
无法指明直接相关的核心文献
审稿人质疑超越既往研究的新知
文章横跨多个领域未聚焦
不确定引用集属于RAST前沿还是实证归档前沿
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill revacc-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "revacc-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when the contribution relative to the accounting frontier and the sibling journals is fuzzy for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — joining the right disclosure\/earnings\/valuation conversation and stating the marginal contribution. Positions the paper; it does not sharpen the one-sentence claim (revacc-contribution-framing) or build the mechanism (revacc-theory-development)."
}
Literature Positioning (revacc-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The intro reads as gap-spotting ("no one has studied X") rather than joining a conversation
- You cannot name the three or four papers your result directly speaks to or overturns
- A referee asks "what do we learn beyond [prior paper]?" or "how is this not [classic result]?"
- The paper straddles disclosure, earnings, and valuation literatures without committing to one
- You are unsure whether the natural cite set is the RAST/analytical-accounting frontier or the empirical-archival frontier
Position into a conversation, not a gap
RAST referees punish gap-spotting. The job is to identify the specific accounting conversation your paper joins, name the two or three works that define its current frontier, and state the marginal move — a new friction, a cleaner setting, a sharper construct, a model that rationalizes a puzzle, or a boundary the prior work did not reach. Because RAST runs both archival and analytical lanes, your positioning must place you on the right frontier and, where relevant, bridge the two: an empirical paper that tests a disclosure-theory prediction, or a model that explains an archival regularity, lands especially well at RAST.
Map your cite set onto the live debates RAST publishes in:
- Disclosure: voluntary vs. mandatory disclosure, disclosure quality and granularity, proprietary costs, real effects of disclosure.
- Earnings quality: earnings management, accruals quality, smoothing, the contracting vs. capital-market motives.
- Valuation / capital markets: value-relevance, information content of earnings, post-earnings-announcement drift, cost of capital effects.
- Analysts / forecasting: forecast accuracy and bias, the information environment, analyst incentives.
- Audit & tax: audit quality and demand, tax avoidance and reporting, regulatory and enforcement consequences.
Stake the contribution against the siblings
State explicitly why the paper is RAST rather than a sibling, because referees and the editor will:
| Journal | Center of gravity | When it, not RAST, is the home |
|---|---|---|
| TAR (AAA) | Contribution-to-the-literature bar; method-agnostic; archival-dominated | The contribution is broad-significance accounting with no special modeling angle |
| JAR (Chicago Booth) | Identification-first; posts a data-and-code package; Registered Reports | The paper lives or dies on a sharp causal design and reproducibility is the headline |
| JAE (Elsevier) | Economics-of-accounting; contracting and capital markets; JAE data archive | A contracting/positive-accounting question in the JAE house style |
| CAR (CPA Canada) | Broad, methodologically catholic accounting | A solid but not frontier-defining accounting study |
RAST's edge: it welcomes analytical modeling on equal footing and rewards papers that connect a model to data — use that to justify the venue.
Write the positioning paragraph
- Name the conversation in one clause; cite its two or three frontier works.
- State the marginal move in one sentence (new friction / setting / construct / model / boundary).
- Say what changes if you are right — for theory and for empirics where you can.
- Pre-empt the obvious "this is just [prior paper]" with the precise difference.
Checklist
- The specific accounting conversation is named, not a generic gap
- Two or three frontier works are cited and the marginal move over them is explicit
- The archival/analytical bridge is exploited if the paper supports it
- The "why RAST not TAR/JAR/JAE/CAR" sentence is present and honest
- The nearest rival paper is named and distinguished precisely
- Citations are real and verifiable; none fabricated (mark 待核实 if unsure)
Anti-patterns
- Gap-spotting: "the literature is silent on X" instead of joining a debate.
- Citation dumping: a paragraph of cites with no statement of the marginal move.
- Sibling blindness: never explaining why RAST and not the more obvious AAA/Chicago/Elsevier outlet.
- One-lane tunnel vision: ignoring the analytical (or empirical) frontier the paper actually touches.
- Inventing exemplars: citing papers you have not verified exist in the archive.
Output format
【Conversation】the specific accounting debate joined
【Frontier works】2–3 real, verified cites
【Marginal move】new friction / setting / construct / model / boundary
【Archival↔analytical bridge】present? how exploited
【Why RAST】vs TAR / JAR / JAE / CAR — one honest sentence
【Nearest rival】named + precise difference
【Source status】citations verified / 待核实
【Next skill】revacc-methods (then revacc-contribution-framing)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:20
