Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› brookings-papers-on-economic-activity
brookings-papers-on-economic-activity
GitHub用于评估宏观政策论文是否符合布鲁金斯经济学活动会议（BPEA）的发表要求。提供期刊定位、触发场景、选题范围、实证标准及写作风格指南，辅助作者进行投稿适配与框架重构。
Trigger Scenarios
作者受邀或计划向BPEA会议提案
需要将宏观论文重新定位为具有实时政策相关性
评估论文是否适合BPEA的讨论者配对格式
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill brookings-papers-on-economic-activity -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "brookings-papers-on-economic-activity",
"description": "Use when targeting Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (BPEA) or deciding whether a macro-policy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, evidence bar, house style, the conference\/solicited route, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (brookings-papers-on-economic-activity)
Journal positioning
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity is the conference-driven outlet of the Brookings Institution for real-time macroeconomics and economic policy. Its distinctive culture is the conference format: papers are presented at the BPEA conference, paired with formal discussants whose comments are published alongside the paper, and aimed at informing current macro-policy debate. What wins here is timely, empirically grounded macro analysis with direct policy relevance and a willingness to engage the policy conversation, often faster and more topical than a standard journal cycle.
This venue is largely conference / solicited. Papers are typically commissioned and scheduled for the conference by the editors and panel; the route in is usually a proposal or invitation, not a routine open submission. Treat this skill as a fit check for a proposed BPEA paper and a guide to the BPEA style.
This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before proposing or submitting, re-check the live author / proposal instructions on the Brookings BPEA site.
When to trigger
- The author has been invited, or wants to propose a paper, for the BPEA conference.
- A topical macro-policy paper needs the discussant-paired, policy-engaged BPEA framing.
- A standard macro paper needs re-framing toward real-time policy relevance and a policy audience.
- The author needs BPEA's expectations and a credible macro / policy alternative list.
Scope & topic fit
- Real-time macroeconomics: business cycles, inflation, unemployment, monetary and fiscal policy, financial stability.
- Topical policy questions where timely, rigorous analysis can inform current debate.
- Empirical macro and applied policy work, including new measurement and assessment of recent events.
- Papers that engage the policy conversation directly, not only the academic frontier.
Method & evidence bar
- Empirical macro rigor with policy relevance: credible data work, transparent methods, and honest treatment of uncertainty in real-time analysis.
- Identification or careful measurement where causal claims are made; macro time-series and panel inference at current standards.
- Willingness to take a clear, defensible policy position and to engage critically with the published discussants' comments.
- Timeliness is part of the value: the analysis should matter to the policy debate now.
Structure & house style
- Papers are presented and then published with formal discussant comments — write anticipating expert critique to be printed alongside.
- The introduction should state the policy question, the empirical approach, the headline finding, and the policy implication early.
- Frame for a policy-literate audience: clear magnitudes, real-world stakes, and explicit caveats.
- Follow the current BPEA formatting, abstract, and exhibit conventions; relegate technical detail to appendices.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Because the venue is conference-driven, first confirm the invitation or use the official paper-proposal channel; search the live site for "Brookings Papers on Economic Activity call for papers / submission" and the proposal process and deadlines.
- Re-check the current length target, abstract format, figure / data conventions, and the conference timeline (draft deadlines, discussant process).
- Re-check the data and code availability policy and disclosure-of-interest requirements.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence stating which current macro-policy debate this informs and why now.
- The contribution is stated as a policy-relevant empirical or analytical advance, not as statistical significance.
- The paper takes a clear, defensible position and anticipates the published discussant critique.
- Methods, magnitudes, and uncertainty are transparent for a policy-literate reader.
- The proposal / invitation route and conference timeline are confirmed.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A non-macro or non-policy paper with no relevance to current economic-policy debate.
- A purely technical macro-theory paper with no real-time policy reading.
- Ignoring the conference / proposal workflow and timeline.
- Overclaiming in real-time analysis without acknowledging data and identification uncertainty.
Re-routing decision
- Academic monetary / business-cycle macro →
journal-of-monetary-economicsoraej-macroeconomics; money and banking →journal-of-money-credit-and-banking. - International / open-economy macro-policy →
imf-economic-review; European policy-debate framing →economic-policy. - General-interest macro with top-5 ambition →
american-economic-review; macro-policy applied →journal-of-public-economics.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does the macro-policy analysis clear this venue's timely, rigorous bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <proposal/invitation route / conference timeline / length / data-code / disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:07
