eer-literature-positioning

Literature Positioning (eer-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• The "what's new here" sentence is vague, defensive, or missing
• Reviewers say the contribution is "incremental" or "already known"
• The related-work section is a list of citations, not an argument
• You cannot name the 3–5 papers your result directly displaces or extends

The EER positioning bar

EER is general-interest across all of economics, so the contribution must be legible to a reader outside your subfield while withstanding the scrutiny of those inside it. That means a two-layer positioning: (1) a broad-interest hook — why a generalist should care — and (2) a precise frontier delta — exactly which result you extend, overturn, or quantify, with the closest 3–5 papers named. Single-anonymized review means the referees are likely the authors you cite: be accurate and fair, neither dismissive nor over-deferential.

Positioning moves

1. Locate the frontier precisely

• Name the closest current papers (not the founding classics) your result speaks to.
• For each, state in one clause what they did and what they left open.
• Distinguish your contribution from concurrent/working-paper work explicitly.

2. State the marginal contribution as a delta

• Use a "we are first to / we show that, unlike X, …" sentence that is true and checkable.
• Pick one primary contribution; relegate secondary ones to a short list.
• Tie the delta to the general-interest hook so breadth and novelty reinforce.

3. Position across fields where relevant

• EER readers cross fields: connect a macro result to its micro evidence, an IO result to its welfare reading, etc.
• A cross-field bridge is itself a breadth signal EER rewards.

4. Calibrate the claim

• Match the size of the claim to the strength of the design/theory (see eer-identification, eer-theory-model).
• Pre-empt "already known" by citing the near-miss and saying precisely how you differ.

Checklist

• [ ] The 3–5 closest frontier papers are named, each with "did / left open"
• [ ] One primary marginal contribution stated as a checkable delta
• [ ] Broad-interest hook present and tied to the frontier delta
• [ ] Concurrent work acknowledged and distinguished
• [ ] Citations are fair and accurate (referees may be the cited authors)
• [ ] Claim size matches design/theory strength — no overselling
• [ ] At least one cross-field bridge where the result naturally travels

Anti-patterns

• A related-work paragraph that lists citations without an argumentative gap
• Citing only 1990s classics and missing the live frontier the referees work on
• "First to study X" claims that a single search would falsify
• Dismissing the nearest competitor instead of crediting and differentiating it
• Burying the contribution so a generalist editor cannot find it before desk-screening
• Overselling a field-internal increment as a general-interest breakthrough

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A public-finance paper estimates the incidence of a carbon tax. A weak positioning says "we contribute to the carbon-tax literature." An EER positioning says: "Closest are A (estimates incidence assuming fixed pass-through) and B (allows pass-through but ignores informal substitution); we relax both and show informal substitution shifts incidence toward poorer households by ~30% (illustrative) — a general lesson about how informal margins change the distributional reading of any consumption tax." Generalist hook (who bears taxes) + precise delta (relaxes two assumptions of named papers) + cross-field travel (any consumption tax).

Output format

【Broad-interest hook】one sentence a generalist cares about
【Closest frontier】3–5 papers, each "did X / left open Y"
【Marginal contribution】the checkable delta (primary)
【Cross-field bridge】where the result travels
【Claim calibration】matched to design/theory strength? [Y/N]
【Next step】eer-identification (empirical) or eer-theory-model (theory)