Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› eer-topic-selection
eer-topic-selection
GitHub用于评估论文是否适合投稿至欧洲经济评论(EER)。通过判断研究问题的广泛性、区分EER与专业期刊，并提供将狭窄问题重构为广泛兴趣结果的策略。
Trigger Scenarios
不确定论文是否符合EER的广泛兴趣定位
收到关于问题过于狭窄或仅对专家有吸引力的反馈
需要在EER、JEEA、ECJ或Elsevier专业期刊间做选择
贡献被视为增量式领域研究而非广泛结果
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill eer-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "eer-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when deciding whether a question is a fit for the European Economic Review (EER) — general-interest across all of economics — rather than a field journal, JEEA, or The Economic Journal. Diagnoses fit and reframes for breadth; it does not build the identification or the model."
}
Topic Selection & Fit (eer-topic-selection)
When to trigger
- You are unsure whether the paper is "EER-shaped" or belongs in a field outlet
- A reviewer/colleague said the question is "too narrow" or "of interest only to specialists"
- You are choosing among EER, JEEA, The Economic Journal, or an Elsevier field journal
- The contribution reads as an incremental field increment, not a broad-interest result
The EER fit bar
EER is Elsevier's general-interest European economics journal (founded 1969), publishing all fields, theory and empirical. The defining test is breadth of interest: would an economist outside your subfield find the question, the answer, or the method worth knowing? EER is not Europe-restricted in topic (the name is institutional), and it is not a methods-first journal — it wants a substantive economic result that travels. Calibrate against the desk-reject filter: editors screen out-of-scope or low-novelty work before review (and the submission fee is non-refundable), so the breadth case must be visible on page one.
Fit decision table
| Signal | Reading | Move |
|---|---|---|
| Result changes how non-specialists think about a first-order question | Strong EER fit | proceed to eer-literature-positioning |
| Solid identification but narrow policy/sector relevance | Borderline — reframe for breadth or consider a field journal | reframe, then eer-literature-positioning |
| Incremental extension of one literature, specialists only | Weak EER fit | broaden the question or target a field outlet |
| Pure theory with a clean, general result | EER fits (theory is in scope) | eer-theory-model |
| About Europe but of only local interest | Topic ≠ scope problem | recast around the general economic mechanism |
EER vs. its siblings (where does this paper go?)
| Outlet | Identity | Pick it when |
|---|---|---|
| EER | Elsevier general-interest, all fields, long-standing | broad-interest result, theory or empirical, no society gate |
| JEEA | The EEA's own flagship (Oxford UP) | you want the EEA society flagship; comparably broad, more selective slot |
| The Economic Journal | RES flagship (Oxford UP) | RES-oriented general-interest home |
| Elsevier field journal (e.g., JME, Labour Economics, JPubE) | field-specialist depth | the contribution is deep but field-internal |
EER and JEEA overlap heavily in scope; the practical difference is the EEA society identity of JEEA and slot scarcity, not topic. Position on contribution and fit, not prestige labels.
Reframing a narrow question for EER breadth
- Name the general mechanism, not the local application ("how search frictions blunt pass-through," not "prices in one retail chain").
- State the first-order quantity or theoretical object a generalist cares about.
- Show portability — one sentence on what the result implies beyond your setting.
- Lead with the answer, not the dataset or estimator.
Checklist
- One sentence states a question a non-specialist economist would care about
- The contribution is an answer/mechanism, not a dataset or a method tweak
- Breadth is visible in the first paragraph (survives the desk-reject screen)
- Sibling check done: EER vs. JEEA / EJ / field journal, decided on fit not prestige
- If theory, the result is general (not a single worked example)
- "European" framing, if any, is recast as a general economic mechanism
Anti-patterns
- Pitching a clean-but-narrow field increment as if breadth were obvious
- Leading with the data source or the estimator instead of the economic question
- Assuming EER means "European topics only" and over-localizing the framing
- Choosing EER purely on impact factor rather than fit and breadth
- Ignoring the desk-reject + non-refundable-fee filter when scope is marginal
Output format
【EER fit】strong / borderline / weak
【General-interest question】one sentence (non-specialist-legible)
【Contribution type】empirical answer / mechanism / theory result
【Breadth case】why a non-specialist cares + portability sentence
【Sibling decision】EER vs JEEA / EJ / field journal — and why
【Next step】eer-literature-positioning (or eer-theory-model if pure theory)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:12
