jae-contribution-framing
GitHub针对JAE论文，指导如何清晰阐述会计现象的经济机制与因果贡献。用于解决贡献单薄、被指增量研究或无法概括经济影响等问题，确保明确机制、量化经济规模并避免过度推断。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jae-contribution-framing -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jae-contribution-framing",
"description": "Use when articulating the contribution of a Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE) manuscript — stating explicitly what the paper teaches about accounting's economic role (information content, contracting, disclosure, standards) and why an economics-based result advances the positive-accounting literature beyond an incremental correlation."
}
Contribution Framing for JAE (jae-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
- Results exist but the "so what for accounting and economics?" is thin
- A reviewer calls the contribution "incremental" or "a known result in a new sample"
- The intro promises a contribution the results do not actually deliver
- You cannot say in one sentence what economic understanding the paper changes
What counts as a JAE contribution
JAE rewards advancing the economic understanding of an accounting phenomenon, not merely documenting a new association. A strong contribution does one or more of:
- Identifies a mechanism: shows why accounting matters economically (e.g., disclosure reduces information asymmetry and thereby the cost of capital), with cross-sectional evidence tied to the friction.
- Resolves an economic tension: adjudicates between competing economics-based explanations (efficient contracting vs. opportunism; information vs. agency).
- Exploits a clean identification: turns a correlation the literature knew into a credibly causal economic result via a shock/IV/RD.
- Informs standards or regulation positively: shows the economic consequences of a rule (SOX, IFRS, Reg FD, an ASU) — predicting and explaining effects, not prescribing policy.
Make the contribution explicit and economic
State the contribution as a claim about the world: "We show that [accounting feature] affects [economic outcome] through [mechanism], because [economic friction]." Avoid framing the contribution as "first to study X in this dataset." Connect it to the specific literature stream from jae-literature-positioning and quantify the economic magnitude so the result is consequential, not just significant.
Honest scope
JAE editors and reviewers are skeptical of overreach. State what the design can and cannot identify; do not claim causality the identification does not support, and do not extend the result beyond the sample's economic setting. A tightly scoped, well-identified contribution beats an ambitious but fragile one.
Where it appears
The contribution belongs up front (intro) and is closed in the discussion: restate the mechanism, the magnitude, the boundary conditions, and the implications for contracting, disclosure, or standard-setting — plus concrete follow-on questions.
Checklist
- One-sentence economic contribution statement (mechanism + outcome + friction)
- Tied to the named literature stream and the tension it resolves
- Economic magnitude, not just significance, stated
- Causal claims matched to the identification (no overreach)
- Standards/regulation implications framed positively, not normatively
- Contribution stated in the intro and closed in the discussion
Anti-patterns
- "First to study X" as the contribution.
- Mechanism-free result presented as theory advance.
- Overclaiming causality beyond the design.
- Normative drift ("regulators should...") in place of positive consequences.
- Magnitude silence — significance with no economic interpretation.
Contribution pass for Journal of Accounting and Economics
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the economic mechanism, accounting setting, identification or model, and market/contracting consequence; then test whether the manuscript addresses accounting-economics reviewers who expect economics discipline, identification, and market or contracting implications.
- Primary move: Translate the result into who learns what, which mechanism changes, and which rival explanation is ruled out; keep the claim narrower than the evidence.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next editrows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly. - Neighbor test: compare against JAR for accounting research breadth, TAR for accounting flagship breadth, Review of Accounting Studies for archival/accounting focus; 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
【Contribution (one sentence)】accounting feature → economic outcome via mechanism
【Type】mechanism / tension-resolution / identification / regulatory consequence
【Stream advanced】(from jae-literature-positioning)
【Economic magnitude】...
【Scope / boundary】what it does and does not identify
【Discussion close】implications for contracting / disclosure / standards
【Next step】jae-tables-figures
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 13:25
