aeja-literature-positioning

Literature Positioning (aeja-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• A referee or co-author asks "what is new here relative to [closely related paper]?"
• The introduction cites a wall of references but never states the marginal addition
• You are unsure whether your contribution is an answer, a design, a setting, or a measurement
• The paper risks reading as a replication or a marginal extension of an existing AEJ: Applied / AER paper

The AEJ: Applied contribution bar

At AEJ: Applied the contribution is judged as: a credibly identified answer to a question the applied-micro community has not yet settled, positioned against the closest prior work — not the whole field. Editors and referees reward a contribution that is specific, honest, and load-bearing. Name your contribution type, then position only against the papers that threaten it.

| Contribution type | What "new" must mean | Positioning move |

|-------------------|----------------------|------------------|

| New answer | a magnitude prior work did not credibly estimate | show why prior designs failed to identify it |

| New design / source of variation | a cleaner identification of a known question | contrast your design's assumptions vs. the standard one |

| New setting / population | external validity that changes the lesson | argue why this setting is informative, not just available |

| New mechanism | decomposing a known effect into channels | show the prior literature left the channel ambiguous |

| New measurement | a quantity nobody could measure before | establish the measure's validity, not just its novelty |

Positioning craft

1. The three-paper test. Name the three papers closest to yours and write one sentence each on what they establish and what they leave open. Your contribution lives in the "leave open" gaps.
2. The honest delta. State the marginal addition in one sentence the closest author would agree with. If they would say "we already did that," the delta is too thin.
3. Position by design, not by topic. "First paper on X in country Y" is weak; "first credibly identified estimate of X because design D removes confound C" is strong.
4. Cite siblings correctly. Distinguish what AER, AEJ: Policy, and field journals have established so you are not re-claiming settled ground.

Checklist

• [ ] Contribution type named (answer / design / setting / mechanism / measurement)
• [ ] Three closest papers identified, each with "establishes / leaves open" sentences
• [ ] One-sentence honest delta the closest author would accept
• [ ] Positioned by identification, not merely by topic or geography
• [ ] No overclaim of "first" without the design reason prior work left it open
• [ ] Related sibling-journal results acknowledged (AER / AEJ: Policy / field) so nothing settled is re-claimed

Anti-patterns

• A literature-review "tour" with no stated marginal addition (a top AEJ: Applied referee reflex)
• Claiming "first to study X" when the novelty is only setting or data, not identification
• Positioning against distant papers to dodge the closest competitor
• Inflating the gap by ignoring a recent paper that already partly closed it
• Burying the contribution sentence on page 6 instead of paragraph 1–2 of the intro

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A draft claims to be "the first study of cash transfers and schooling in [country]." A referee replies that

three RCTs already estimate this effect elsewhere, so geography is not a contribution. The AEJ: Applied fix

is to reposition by identification and mechanism: the closest papers estimate the effect where transfers

are conditional, leaving open the unconditional case; this paper exploits an unconditional rollout and shows

the schooling response is half as large (illustrative), isolating the conditionality channel. The

contribution becomes a mechanism the closest authors would agree they did not pin down — not a new map pin.

Referee pushback mapped to the positioning fix

• "This is incremental relative to [closest paper]." → State the honest delta in one sentence the closest

author would accept; show the specific gap their design left open.

• "You claim 'first' but it is just a new setting." → Reframe as a cleaner identification or a new

mechanism, with the design reason prior work left it open.

• "You ignore [recent paper] that already does this." → Cite it, state precisely what it settled, and

position in the residual gap rather than the whole field.

Output format

【Contribution type】answer / design / setting / mechanism / measurement
【Three closest papers】1) ___ (open: ___) 2) ___ (open: ___) 3) ___ (open: ___)
【Honest delta】one sentence the closest author would accept
【Positioned by】identification reason prior work left it open: ___
【Sibling check】settled by AER/AEJ:Policy/field that we do NOT re-claim: ___
【Next step】aeja-identification (or aeja-writing-style if design is settled)