Topic Selection (jet-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• Deciding whether a result belongs at JET versus a field or empirical journal
• You have data, an experiment, or a computation and want to know if it can go to JET
• Choosing which of several results to lead with

The JET scope gate

JET publishes across mechanism design, information economics, decision theory, game theory, matching, market design, political economy, and finance / macroeconomic / monetary theory — broad general theory in one venue, not a subfield niche. The single deciding criterion is a rigorous, original theoretical contribution. Ask three questions:

1. Is the core deliverable a theorem (or a genuinely new model/characterization)? If the headline is a regression coefficient or a calibration with no new theoretical result, JET is off-fit — regardless of how clean the empirics are.
2. Is it original and non-trivial? A restatement of a known result, or a special case of an existing theorem, will not clear the desk screen (see jet-review-process).
3. If there is empirical / experimental / quantitative / computational content, is it firmly grounded in theory? JET admits such work only as the application or test of a theoretical contribution that is itself the paper's point — not as a stand-alone empirical paper.

Decision rule

• Lead with the theory. State the result you would put in the abstract as a proposition/theorem. If you cannot, the project is not yet a JET paper.
• Generality vs. tractability. A clean result under transparent assumptions usually beats a more general result that no referee can verify (see jet-identification-strategy).
• Subfield routing. Name the area early — submissions are routed to the matching editor.

Deliverable-type scope table

Vignette: a matching project at the gate

A team holds (i) a stability-existence theorem for matching with regional constraints, (ii) simulations on synthetic data, and (iii) a policy application. Running the three questions:

• Q1: yes — the existence theorem is the deliverable; the simulations and policy story are not.
• Q2: check against the closest constrained-matching theorem before claiming novelty; if the result is a special case of a published substitutes condition, it will not clear the screen.
• Q3: the simulations only exhibit the constrained core's shape, so they compress into one numbered Example with a script (jet-data-analysis).

Verdict: JET-ready — lead with the theorem, demote the policy narrative to one motivation paragraph, and name "matching / market design" for editor routing.

Lead-result selection when you have several

• Prefer the result whose assumptions are cleanest to state, even if a sibling result is technically harder — the lead theorem is what the desk screen reads.
• A characterization beats an existence result as the headline when both are proved; existence can follow as a corollary section.
• Never lead with the comparative static if the underlying equilibrium object is itself new.

Anti-patterns

• An applied-micro or finance paper with a token model bolted on
• A computational exercise with no characterization result behind it
• A marginal generalization of a published theorem framed as new

Output format

【Core result】<the theorem/characterization in one sentence>
【Scope fit】in-scope theory area: <area> | off-fit: <why>
【Empirical/computational content】none | grounded-in-theory | stand-alone (off-fit)
【Verdict】JET-ready / reframe / send elsewhere → jet-literature-positioning