restat-literature-positioning
GitHub针对REStat论文，将模糊的贡献陈述转化为对具体文献的精确增量分析。通过识别识别或测量优势，量化贡献价值，避免泛泛而谈，确保审稿人能清晰理解边际贡献。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill restat-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "restat-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when the marginal contribution of a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript against the closest prior work is fuzzy, generic, or oversold. Stakes the contribution precisely; it does not run analysis or write the full literature review."
}
Literature Positioning (restat-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The intro's "we contribute to several literatures" reads as a citation dump
- A referee could ask "how is this different from [obvious prior paper]?" and you lack a one-line answer
- The contribution is stated as a topic ("we study X") rather than a delta against named work
- You are unsure whether your measurement / identification advance is genuinely new
The REStat positioning bar
REStat referees are applied economists who know the closest five papers cold. Positioning must be a precise delta against named work, not a tour of a literature. Because REStat prizes measurement and credible identification, the most persuasive deltas are of two kinds: (1) identification delta — your design credibly estimates a parameter prior work could only correlate or estimate under weaker assumptions; (2) measurement delta — you measure the object better (new data, less error, a validated index) and that changes an applied conclusion. "First to study" is rarely the contribution; "first to credibly identify / cleanly measure, and it overturns/sharpens [conclusion]" is.
How to stake the contribution
- Name the 3–5 closest papers — the ones a referee will compare you to first, by author-year.
- State the delta against each in one clause: what they did, what you do differently, why it matters.
- Classify your delta: new identification | better measurement | new setting that is itself informative | reconciles conflicting prior estimates.
- Quantify the stakes where possible: "prior estimates range 0.2–0.8 because of [bias]; our design pins it at [X]."
- State scope honestly: what your contribution does not claim (external validity, mechanism, generality).
Positioning patterns that land at REStat
| Pattern | Example shape |
|---|---|
| Identification upgrade | "Prior work used OLS/TWFE; we use [RD / IV / het-robust DID] and the estimate changes" |
| Measurement upgrade | "Prior work proxied [X] with [noisy measure]; our better-measured [X] reverses the sign/magnitude" |
| Reconciliation | "Estimates disagree across studies; we show the gap is [selection / measurement / specification]" |
| Better-powered / wider data | "We bring [bigger / cleaner / linked] data that resolves an under-powered debate" |
| Applied use of a method | "We apply [estimator] to [setting] where its assumptions hold, recovering [parameter]" |
Checklist
- 3–5 closest papers named by author-year, not just cited in a block
- A one-clause delta stated against each closest paper
- Delta classified (identification / measurement / setting / reconciliation)
- Stakes quantified or sharply described (what changes if you are right)
- Scope limits stated — what the contribution does NOT claim
- No "first to study" claim doing the work a real delta should do
Anti-patterns
- A literature tour (paragraphs of "X did A, Y did B, Z did C") with no delta
- "First to study [topic]" as the contribution (REStat referees discount novelty-of-topic)
- Overclaiming generality a single applied setting cannot support
- Ignoring the single closest paper because it is inconvenient (referees will name it)
- Citing methods papers to look sophisticated while the applied delta stays vague
Worked vignette: turning a tour into a delta (illustrative)
A draft opens: "A large literature studies the minimum wage's employment effects (A, B, C…). We add to this literature." A REStat referee reads that as no contribution. The fix is to name the single closest paper and state the delta: "Paper B estimated this with TWFE across staggered state increases and found a small disemployment effect; we re-estimate with a heterogeneity-robust estimator on the same variation and a better-measured teen-employment series, and the effect is statistically indistinguishable from zero — the earlier negative estimate was driven by forbidden comparisons and measurement error." That is a delta (identification + measurement) that reconciles a contested estimate, with stakes a referee can weigh.
Output format
【Closest prior work】[paper1 / paper2 / paper3 (/4/5)] by author-year
【Delta vs each】p1: [...]; p2: [...]; p3: [...]
【Delta type】identification | measurement | setting | reconciliation
【Stakes】what changes if we are right: [...]
【Scope NOT claimed】[...]
【Next step】restat-identification
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:21
