wber-topic-selection
GitHub用于评估发展经济学研究是否适合发表在《世界银行经济评论》(WBER)。该技能通过“可信实证”与“政策相关性”双重标准，判断稿件匹配度并提供重构建议，明确区分适用场景与拒稿方向。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill wber-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "wber-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when deciding whether a development-economics question fits The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) — and how to frame it so both halves of the WBER bar (credible empirics AND policy relevance) are visible. Locks the question and outlet; it does not run the analysis or write the prose."
}
Topic Selection (wber-topic-selection)
When to trigger
- You have a developing-country result but are unsure it is "general" enough for WBER
- The work could plausibly go to JDE, World Development, the Research Observer, or WBER and the outlet is undecided
- The paper reads like a single-program project report rather than evidence on a mechanism
- A reviewer or coauthor says "interesting, but is this a World Bank paper?"
- You are weighing a full-length article vs. a WBER short-format policy note
The WBER two-part bar
WBER's stated mission is to publish innovative theoretical and empirical research that identifies, analyzes, measures, and evaluates the macro- and micro-economic forces that promote or impede economic development. The selection test is a logical AND, not an OR:
- Credible empirics — a design or measurement that a sophisticated applied economist trusts (this is the JDE-grade half).
- Development-policy relevance — the result changes how a development practitioner, finance ministry, or World Bank task team would think or act. Importantly, "policy-relevant" does not mean "aligned with World Bank policy": editorial independence is explicit — consistency with Bank policy plays no role in selection.
A paper that is methodologically immaculate but has no developing-country policy stake reads as "send to a general field journal." A paper with a vivid policy story but a fragile design reads as "send to World Development or a report series." WBER wants both.
Decision table by candidate paper
| Your paper looks like... | WBER fit | Move |
|---|---|---|
| Single RCT/evaluation of one program in one place | Conditional | Reframe around the mechanism and what it teaches development policy broadly; argue external validity / scale-up |
| Quasi-experiment on a developing-country policy reform | Strong | Foreground the reform as a policy lever; quantify the counterfactual |
| New measurement of poverty/inequality/welfare in LDCs | Strong | Lead with what the measure changes for targeting/policy; nail data construction |
| Methods paper / new estimator | Weak | Send to an econometrics or methods outlet unless the application is the development contribution |
| Survey / literature overview / framework piece | Wrong outlet | Route to the World Bank Research Observer (surveys, not refereed in the WBER sense) |
| Rich-country labor/finance study | Wrong outlet | Send to a general field journal; WBER is developing-country focused |
How to sharpen the question
- Name the policy decision. "Should a government means-test transfers vs. give universally?" beats "we evaluate a transfer program."
- Name the development force. Tie the result to a recognized margin: human-capital accumulation, market frictions, credit/insurance constraints, state capacity, trade exposure, informality.
- State the population and the data spine early. WBER readers expect developing-country data — administrative records, LSMS, DHS, censuses, firm registries, or original surveys — and will judge whether the question is answerable with what you have.
- Decide full-length vs. short-format. If the contribution is one clean, timely policy-relevant result, the short-format track may be the faster, better-fit home; do not pad it into a full article.
Full-length vs. short-format
WBER runs two tracks, and the topic should pick the track:
- Short-format fits a single, sharp, timely policy-relevant result with one clean design — a focused evaluation, a new fact, a quick policy-relevant test. Do not pad it with a literature tour or a decorative model; its virtue is speed and focus.
- Full-length fits a result that needs multiple designs, a mechanism investigation, heterogeneity, or a model-based counterfactual to land. If the contribution genuinely requires that scaffolding, do not amputate it into a short paper.
Choosing the wrong track is a real fit error: a thin paper stretched to full length reads as padded; a rich paper compressed to short format reads as underdeveloped.
Worked vignette (illustrative)
A team has an RCT of an agricultural-extension app in one region showing a 6% yield gain. As a topic it is a "project report." The WBER reframe asks: what force does this speak to? They reposition it as evidence on information frictions in technology adoption — a central development margin — and ask the policy question "should governments subsidize digital vs. in-person extension?" The data spine (administrative plot records plus the app's usage logs) is named up front, external validity is flagged (one agro-climatic zone), and because the contribution is a single clean result on a timely question, they choose the short-format track. The topic now passes both halves of the bar.
Checklist
- One sentence states the development question AND the policy decision it informs
- The result is framed as evidence on a mechanism/force, not a project write-up
- The setting is developing-country and the data spine (LSMS/DHS/admin/survey) is named
- Policy relevance is argued without claiming alignment with World Bank policy (independence)
- Sibling outlets explicitly ruled out (not JDE-as-pure-method, not WD-as-interdisciplinary, not Research Observer-as-survey)
- Full-length vs. short-format track chosen deliberately
Anti-patterns
- Pitching a methods innovation with a thin development application as if WBER were a methods journal
- A "project report" framing: evaluating one program with no claim about a transferable mechanism
- Conflating "policy-relevant" with "endorses a World Bank position" — selection is independent of Bank policy
- Sending a survey/overview to WBER instead of the Research Observer
- Assuming any developing-country dataset makes a paper a WBER paper without a policy stake
The desk-reject screen
Before investing further, run the question through the screen a WBER editor applies in the first pass:
- Developing-country setting? If the data and policy are rich-country, it is a desk reject regardless of quality.
- Original empirics (or genuine theory)? A survey or synthesis is a reroute to the Research Observer, not a WBER paper.
- A policy stake a practitioner would recognize? "Interesting to economists only" is not enough for WBER's dual audience.
- A credible path to identification? A vivid policy story with no plausible design will not clear the rigor half.
A question that fails any one of these should be re-scoped or re-homed now, before the design, exhibits, and writing skills are invoked on a paper the editor will return unread.
Output format
【Target】The World Bank Economic Review
【Development question】one sentence
【Policy decision informed】who acts differently and how
【Development force / mechanism】the margin the result speaks to
【Data spine】LSMS / DHS / admin / firm / original survey
【Track】full-length / short-format
【Sibling ruled out】why not JDE / World Development / Research Observer
【Next skill】wber-literature-positioning
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:31
