geb-literature-positioning
GitHub针对GEB期刊优化博弈论手稿的文献定位，明确与现有成果的新颖性差异。通过精准对比、声明贡献增量及跨领域引用，避免综述式写作或特殊案例质疑，确保在专家审稿中获得认可。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill geb-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "geb-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when positioning a game-theory manuscript against the existing literature for Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) — staking what is new relative to known solution concepts, theorems, mechanisms, and prior experiments. Sharpens the contribution; it is not a standalone survey."
}
Literature Positioning (geb-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The relation to prior game-theory results is vague ("related to a large literature")
- You cannot name the two or three papers you most directly generalize or beat
- A reviewer might say "this is already known" or "this is just a special case of X"
- The paper reads as a survey with a result attached, instead of a result with placement
The GEB positioning bar
GEB is a specialist journal, so its referees and Advisory Editors are game-theory experts who know the canonical results cold. Positioning here is sharper than at a general-economics journal: you are not explaining game theory to outsiders, you are convincing insiders that your theorem, mechanism, or experiment is not implied by what they already know. Because the chief editor routes your paper to an anonymous Advisory Editor (one of ~45) who selects referees, the people judging novelty are likely to include authors of the nearest prior work — position honestly and precisely.
GEB also spans economics, political science, biology, computer science, mathematics, and psychology, so the "nearest neighbor" to your result may live in a CS/EC or biology literature, not only in economics. Search across those fields; a result already known in algorithmic game theory or evolutionary biology is not novel just because it is new to economics.
How to stake the contribution
- Name the frontier. Cite the specific prior theorem / mechanism / experiment your work advances, not a vague cluster.
- State the delta in one sentence. "Relative to [X], we drop assumption A / weaken B / cover a new class / get a tight bound where [X] gave a loose one."
- Pre-empt the special-case objection. Show explicitly what your result gives that the nearest result does not — ideally a corollary recovering theirs as a limit.
- Distinguish a prior conference version. If your own earlier conference paper (EC, WINE, SAGT, etc.) exists, say what is new here; GEB requires this disclosure and referees will know the conference work.
- Credit across fields. If the idea echoes a CS/biology/political-science result, cite it and explain the added game-theoretic value.
Anti-patterns
- A literature "wall" of citations with no stated delta against any single paper
- Ignoring near-identical CS/EC or evolutionary-game results because they are outside economics
- Claiming novelty that a reader can refute with one well-known theorem
- Burying the contribution sentence on page 6
- Hiding overlap with your own prior conference paper
Positioning pass for Games and Economic Behavior
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then test whether the manuscript addresses game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.
- Primary move: Map incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, this manuscript's delta, and the sibling-venue omission a referee might notice.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next editrows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly. - Neighbor test: compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.mdfor volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Nearest prior work】[2-3 specific papers / theorems / mechanisms]
【Delta sentence】"relative to X, we ..."
【Special-case defense】recovers X as a limit / corollary? [Y/N]
【Cross-field check】CS-EC / biology / poli-sci neighbors cited? [Y/N]
【Conference-version overlap】disclosed + differentiated? [Y/N / NA]
【Next step】geb-contribution-framing
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:15
