跳到主要内容
知仓学习社ZHICANG

eer-topic-selection

Use when deciding whether a question is a fit for the European Economic Review (EER) — general-interest across all of economics — rather than a fiel…

不碰外部(只输出文字)无严重或高危命中brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

它会碰到什么

扫了多少1 个文本文件,5 KB
它会碰到什么不碰外部(只输出文字)
命中总数0 处
命中统计严重 0 · 高 0 · 中 0 · 低 0

这一栏是扫描器报的事实,不是结论。命中多不等于有毒(安全工具、规则库、示例脚本本来就会包含危险写法),命中少也不等于干净。它和你手上的凭据、文件、网络有什么关系,需要你自己看。

技能内容

Topic Selection & Fit (eer-topic-selection)

When to trigger

  • You are unsure whether the paper is "EER-shaped" or belongs in a field outlet
  • A reviewer/colleague said the question is "too narrow" or "of interest only to specialists"
  • You are choosing among EER, JEEA, The Economic Journal, or an Elsevier field journal
  • The contribution reads as an incremental field increment, not a broad-interest result

The EER fit bar

EER is Elsevier's general-interest European economics journal (founded 1969), publishing all fields, theory and empirical. The defining test is breadth of interest: would an economist outside your subfield find the question, the answer, or the method worth knowing? EER is not Europe-restricted in topic (the name is institutional), and it is not a methods-first journal — it wants a substantive economic result that travels. Calibrate against the desk-reject filter: editors screen out-of-scope or low-novelty work before review (and the submission fee is non-refundable), so the breadth case must be visible on page one.

Fit decision table

| Signal | Reading | Move |

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

| Result changes how non-specialists think about a first-order question | Strong EER fit | proceed to eer-literature-positioning |

| Solid identification but narrow policy/sector relevance | Borderline — reframe for breadth or consider a field journal | reframe, then eer-literature-positioning |

| Incremental extension of one literature, specialists only | Weak EER fit | broaden the question or target a field outlet |

| Pure theory with a clean, general result | EER fits (theory is in scope) | eer-theory-model |

| About Europe but of only local interest | Topic ≠ scope problem | recast around the general economic mechanism |

EER vs. its siblings (where does this paper go?)

| Outlet | Identity | Pick it when |

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

| EER | Elsevier general-interest, all fields, long-standing | broad-interest result, theory or empirical, no society gate |

| JEEA | The EEA's own flagship (Oxford UP) | you want the EEA society flagship; comparably broad, more selective slot |

| The Economic Journal | RES flagship (Oxford UP) | RES-oriented general-interest home |

| Elsevier field journal (e.g., JME, Labour Economics, JPubE) | field-specialist depth | the contribution is deep but field-internal |

> EER and JEEA overlap heavily in scope; the practical difference is the EEA society identity of JEEA and slot scarcity, not topic. Position on contribution and fit, not prestige labels.

Reframing a narrow question for EER breadth

  1. Name the general mechanism, not the local application ("how search frictions blunt pass-through," not "prices in one retail chain").
  2. State the first-order quantity or theoretical object a generalist cares about.
  3. Show portability — one sentence on what the result implies beyond your setting.
  4. Lead with the answer, not the dataset or estimator.

Checklist

  • [ ] One sentence states a question a non-specialist economist would care about
  • [ ] The contribution is an answer/mechanism, not a dataset or a method tweak
  • [ ] Breadth is visible in the first paragraph (survives the desk-reject screen)
  • [ ] Sibling check done: EER vs. JEEA / EJ / field journal, decided on fit not prestige
  • [ ] If theory, the result is general (not a single worked example)
  • [ ] "European" framing, if any, is recast as a general economic mechanism

Anti-patterns

  • Pitching a clean-but-narrow field increment as if breadth were obvious
  • Leading with the data source or the estimator instead of the economic question
  • Assuming EER means "European topics only" and over-localizing the framing
  • Choosing EER purely on impact factor rather than fit and breadth
  • Ignoring the desk-reject + non-refundable-fee filter when scope is marginal

Output format

【EER fit】strong / borderline / weak
【General-interest question】one sentence (non-specialist-legible)
【Contribution type】empirical answer / mechanism / theory result
【Breadth case】why a non-specialist cares + portability sentence
【Sibling decision】EER vs JEEA / EJ / field journal — and why
【Next step】eer-literature-positioning (or eer-theory-model if pure theory)

想直接用这个技能?

本站把开放许可(MIT / Apache 等)的技能按仓库打包整理到网盘,点一下转存到你自己的网盘,不用一个个从 GitHub 拉。许可未声明的技能只给原始仓库链接,不打包。