geb-topic-selection
GitHub评估博弈论成果是否符合《Games and Economic Behavior》期刊的发表标准，判断其是否显著推进理论前沿。适用于选题决策、避免增量研究或应对审稿质疑，通过概念、机制、行为等维度进行严格匹配测试。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill geb-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "geb-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when judging whether a game-theory result is the right fit and scale for Games and Economic Behavior (GEB) — does it advance the frontiers of game theory and its applications? Tests the idea against GEB's specialist-but-general-interest bar before the paper is built out."
}
Topic Selection (geb-topic-selection)
When to trigger
- You have a model or experiment but are unsure it is "GEB-sized"
- The result is correct but feels incremental over a known theorem
- You are deciding between GEB and a field outlet (theory, behavioral, CS/EC venue)
- A referee or colleague said "true, but so what?"
The GEB fit bar
GEB is the leading specialist game-theory journal and an official journal of the Game Theory Society (Elsevier; founded 1989 by Ehud Kalai; chief editor Hervé Moulin since 2021). The defining test is not general-economics policy interest — it is whether the work significantly advances the frontiers of game theory and its applications. The scope is deliberately broad across methods: equilibrium theory, mechanism and market design, behavioral game theory, learning and dynamics, and experimental/empirical work — and broad across fields that use game theory: economics, political science, biology, computer science, mathematics, and psychology. The audience is a general game-theory readership, so the contribution must be legible and interesting beyond one narrow sub-literature.
Selectivity is explicit and high: about one-third of submissions are desk-rejected, and only ~15% are eventually published. The Editor in Charge will desk-reject papers judged to have no chance of meeting the publication criterion. That makes "what does this teach game theory that we did not know?" the first-page question.
Fit tests (a GEB paper usually clears several)
- Conceptual advance: a new solution concept, a sharper characterization, a new class of games, an existence/uniqueness result, or a unifying framework.
- Mechanism / design advance: a new mechanism, an impossibility/possibility result, an optimal or constructive design.
- Behavioral advance: a model or experiment that changes how strategic behavior is understood, well-identified against alternatives.
- Generality / surprise: the result holds more broadly than expected, or overturns an intuition.
- Cross-field reach: game-theoretic content that speaks to CS/EC, biology, or political science — common at GEB, but it must still be a game-theory contribution.
Anti-patterns
- A correct but routine extension ("Theorem 1 with one more player") with no new insight
- An applied paper that uses a game but contributes nothing to game theory itself (better at a field journal)
- A pure CS/EC conference result reframed with no added generality or economic interpretation
- Over-claiming a narrow special case as a general theory
Fit pass for Games and Economic Behavior
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the primitives, equilibrium concept, comparative statics, and proof or experiment boundary; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: game theorists who ask what the model teaches beyond a clever example.
- Do the pass: Score the manuscript on venue fit, novelty, evidence readiness, and audience ownership; reject a prestige-only target when a sibling venue owns the contribution more directly.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript locationrows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue. - Sibling guard: compare against JET for theory abstraction, Theoretical Economics for compact theory contribution, Experimental Economics for experiment-first designs; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.mdhas been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Result type】theory / mechanism design / behavioral / experiment / cross-field
【Advance to game theory】one sentence — what we did not know before
【Fit tests cleared】[conceptual / design / behavioral / generality / cross-field]
【Desk-reject risk】low / medium / high — why
【Verdict】GEB-fit / borderline / better elsewhere
【Next step】geb-literature-positioning
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:16
