jeea-topic-selection

Topic Selection & Fit (jeea-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• The question feels important within one subfield but you are unsure it travels
• You are choosing between JEEA, The Economic Journal, the European Economic Review, a field journal, or a top-5
• A draft answers a narrow technical question with no broad lesson
• A co-author asks "is this a JEEA paper?"

The JEEA fit bar

JEEA is the EEA's general-interest journal for high-quality theoretical and empirical economics. The bar is general interest at a high theory-and-empirics standard: a paper must matter to a broad economics readership, not only to specialists in its subfield. JEEA is genuinely field-agnostic — micro and macro theory, applied econometrics, applied micro, finance, development, public all appear — so what discriminates is not the field but whether the lesson generalizes and whether the execution clears a strong methodological bar for either a credible empirical design or a disciplined model.

Two questions decide fit:

1. Does the lesson travel? State the take-away in one sentence a non-specialist economist would find surprising or consequential. If the sentence only lands for subfield insiders, it is a field-journal paper.
2. Does the execution clear the bar? A clean, defensible identification (empirical) or a model whose assumptions are disciplined and whose result is sharp (theory/structural). General interest without rigor is a magazine piece; rigor without general interest is a field paper.

Fit decision table

| Situation | Likely home | Why |

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

| Broad lesson + clean identification or sharp model | JEEA | the general-interest sweet spot |

| Broad lesson but execution is preliminary | revise first (jeea-identification / jeea-theory-model), then JEEA | the bar is the obstacle, not the topic |

| Rigorous but the lesson is subfield-only | a strong field journal | general interest is missing |

| New estimator with a toy application | an econometrics field journal | method-first, not question-first |

| Top-5-or-bust ambition with marginal novelty | calibrate (JEEA is a strong, faster home) | jeea-referee-strategy |

Sibling discrimination (do not target the wrong European outlet)

• **vs. The Economic Journal (RES):** both are broad European outlets; JEEA carries the EEA association-journal identity with a strong theory+empirics bar. Pick by where the lesson and the execution genuinely land.
• **vs. European Economic Review (EER):** EER is broad-scope but typically less of a top-tier general-interest gatekeeper; JEEA aims higher on the general-interest novelty bar.
• vs. top-5: JEEA is a strong European general-interest home below the top-5 — a realistic, faster home for a paper with a genuine general-interest lesson that is not quite a top-5 swing.

The two-minute fit triage

Before any deeper work, run this quick triage to avoid building toward the wrong venue:

1. State the lesson in one sentence to a colleague in a different subfield. If they shrug, the general-interest hook is missing.
2. Name the execution path — empirical design or model — and ask whether it is already at, or can reach, a strong bar.
3. Name the closest competitor venue honestly (EJ, EER, field, top-5) and the reason JEEA wins or loses against it.

If 1 and 2 both pass, JEEA is in play; if only 2 passes, the topic is a field paper; if only 1 passes, the execution is the obstacle, not the venue.

Checklist

• [ ] One-sentence lesson written; a non-specialist would find it surprising or consequential
• [ ] Field is irrelevant to the decision — fit rests on generality + rigor, not subfield prestige
• [ ] Execution path chosen: credible empirical design or disciplined model (route to jeea-identification / jeea-theory-model)
• [ ] Sibling check done (JEEA vs. EJ / EER / field / top-5) with an honest reason
• [ ] The contribution is an answer or a result, not a method demonstration

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A draft is titled "Bank Branch Closures and Small-Firm Credit in [one country], 2010–2018." As framed, it is a banking-field paper. The JEEA-grade reframe asks the travel test: what general lesson does the closure shock teach? The revision leads with "When physical bank access disappears, which firms lose credit — and does soft information explain it?" The closure is now an instrument for a general question about relationship lending and information frictions, with a lesson that travels to any economy digitizing its banking. Same data, JEEA-shaped question.

Anti-patterns

• Selling subfield depth ("the most complete treatment of X in setting Y") where a general reader sees no broad lesson
• Pitching JEEA as a consolation top-5 reject without re-framing the general-interest contribution
• A purely methodological paper with a toy application (econometrics-field-shaped, not JEEA-shaped)
• Assuming "European topic" = JEEA fit — geography is not the criterion; generality is
• Choosing the venue before the question is sharp — fit follows the lesson, not the other way around

Output format

【One-sentence lesson】[does it travel beyond the subfield? Y/N]
【Field】[any — not the deciding factor]
【Execution path】empirical design / theory model / structural-quantitative
【JEEA vs siblings】[JEEA / EJ / EER / field / top-5] + reason
【General-interest verdict】[fit / revise-then-fit / wrong venue]
【Next step】jeea-literature-positioning