restud-topic-selection
GitHub评估研究想法是否达到REStud顶刊标准，诊断选题契合度与原创贡献。通过单句测试和新颖性审计，判断是否具备理论、识别策略或新事实层面的清晰、优雅且具普遍兴趣的贡献，而非增量扩展。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill restud-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "restud-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when evaluating whether a research idea clears the REStud top-5 bar, or when sharpening a fuzzy idea into one clean original contribution for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript. Diagnoses fit and contribution; does not draft prose or design empirics."
}
REStud Topic Selection (restud-topic-selection)
When to trigger
- A new project just started and the contribution cannot be compressed into one sentence
- The user is unsure whether the idea is REStud-level or a field-journal paper
- A prior desk rejection needs diagnosing — was the topic the problem?
- The paper "feels solid" but no senior colleague has agreed it is top-5
The REStud bar
REStud is general-interest and field-agnostic: founded in 1933 to advance theoretical and applied economics, especially by younger economists, it weights theory and applied work equally — a distinct profile from the more empirically tilted top-5s. What it consistently rewards is a clean, original contribution presented rigorously and economically. The contribution must be one of:
- A new model — a tractable framework that delivers an economic insight others did not have
- A new identification strategy — a credible research design that makes a previously hard causal question answerable
- A striking new empirical fact — a robust, surprising regularity that reshapes how a literature thinks
A paper clears the bar when all of the following hold:
- Originality. The core object — model, design, or fact — is genuinely new, not a competent re-run of a known toolkit on new data.
- Technical excellence. Theory: correct, complete proofs. Empirics: state-of-the-art design and inference.
- Elegance / economy. The contribution is legible quickly; the result does not require the reader to wade through the appendix to see why it matters.
- General interest. A reader outside the immediate subfield can see why the result is interesting.
If the core object is merely an incremental extension, the realistic target is a strong field journal, not REStud.
The contribution-sentence test
Force the contribution into one sentence:
We show that [result], which is new because [prior work could not / believed otherwise],
established via [a new model / a new identification strategy / a new empirical fact],
and this matters for [the broader economic question Q].
Failure diagnoses:
- Result vague → the question is not yet a question
- "new because" blank → this is an extension; reconsider venue
- Mechanism of novelty is "more data" → field-journal signal, not REStud
- Q absent → no general interest; subfield journal
Novelty audit
- Has someone in NBER / CEPR / SSRN already posted this? Search before writing.
- What is the single closest paper, and what does yours add — new model, new design, new fact, opposite sign?
- Could a referee compress your contribution into "we already knew that"?
- Could a referee compress it into "true but not interesting / not economics"?
- Is the contribution one thing, stated cleanly — or a bundle of three half-results?
A "yes" to (3) or (4), or a bundle in (5), is fatal at REStud.
Junior-scholar note
REStud is well known for being friendly to young scholars — the annual REStud Tour / "May Meetings" showcases job-market-stage work by junior economists. If this is a job-market paper, the originality and elegance bar is exactly the same; the practical implication is that a single, sharp, well-executed contribution is more valuable than a sprawling paper. Verify current Tour eligibility and timing on the journal's official page.
Checklist
- Contribution compresses to one sentence with the novelty clause filled
- Core object is clearly one of {new model, new design, new fact}
- Closest published paper named and the marginal contribution stated
- Result has general interest beyond the immediate subfield
- Not a bundle — the paper makes one clean point
- At least one senior reader agrees it is plausibly top-5
Anti-patterns
- Choosing REStud for prestige rather than fit; a field-journal acceptance beats two top-5 rejections
- A contribution sentence containing "and we also explore ..." — the and is where the paper dies
- "Incremental contribution dressed as novelty" — REStud referees punish this fast
- Weak or generic motivation ("X is important and understudied") with no sharp question
- Treating heavy technical machinery as the contribution when the economic payoff is thin
Output format
【CONTRIBUTION SENTENCE】<one line, novelty clause filled>
【CORE OBJECT】new model | new identification | new empirical fact
【CLOSEST PAPER】<cite> — marginal contribution: <one line>
【GENERAL INTEREST】yes / no — to whom outside the subfield
【KILL SWITCHES TRIGGERED】<list or "none">
【NEXT SKILL】restud-literature-positioning
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 14:21
