red-topic-selection
GitHub评估研究问题是否符合《经济动态评论》(RED)期刊要求。通过检查动态机制、模型类型及SED受众视角，判断论文是否属于动态经济学范畴，并区分其与一般性或专业性期刊的适配度，辅助作者决定投稿目标。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill red-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "red-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when testing 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.
Wrong-venue redirects
- Mostly reduced-form policy estimate with no dynamic model -> field journal or applied-economics outlet.
- Pure econometric method with no dynamic-economics object -> methods/econometrics outlet.
- Broad macro paper whose contribution is policy relevance rather than dynamic mechanism -> generalist macro or policy journal.
- Calibration exercise with no new mechanism, method, or disciplined moment -> revise before targeting RED.
Dynamic-mechanism test
Write the candidate contribution in this form:
Because [state variable] evolves through [law of motion/friction], [shock/policy/choice] changes
[future object], generating [quantitative/theoretical implication].
If the sentence still works after deleting the law of motion, the paper may not be a RED paper. If the
result depends on dynamics but the model is not disciplined by moments, proofs, or computation, route to
red-data-analysis before drafting.
Fit-scoring pass
Score each dimension 0–2 before committing the project to RED:
| Dimension | 0 | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamics | static comparison | dynamics present but incidental | transition/fluctuation is the object |
| Model | none or a sketch | calibrated model supports a side result | dynamic model carries the headline claim |
| Discipline | parameters chosen freely | partial targets | explicit calibration/estimation against moments |
| Audience | generalist or policy | field-adjacent | SED community would discuss it at the Annual Meeting |
Illustrative read: 7–8 → proceed; 5–6 → strengthen the weak dimension first (usually Discipline); ≤4 → re-scope or pick another venue. The thresholds are working heuristics, not journal policy.
Scoring vignette: a household-finance idea
"Mortgage refinancing frictions and consumption." Version A regresses spending on rate gaps: Dynamics 1, Model 0, Discipline 0, Audience 1 → not a RED paper. Version B builds a life-cycle model with a fixed refinancing cost, calibrates that cost to observed refinancing hazards, and quantifies the mortgage channel of monetary transmission: Dynamics 2, Model 2, Discipline 2, Audience 2 → squarely in scope. Same topic, different lens — the venue decision turns on version B's dynamic model, not on the subject matter.
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
Output format
[RED fit] strong / possible / weak
[Dynamic mechanism] <state variable, law of motion, or equilibrium force>
[Model discipline] theory / computation / calibration / estimation / missing
[Best route] RED / generalist macro / field journal / methods outlet
[Next step] red-contribution-framing or red-data-analysis
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— RED scope sources
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:21
