jet-topic-selection

Topic Selection (jet-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• Deciding whether a result belongs at JET versus a field or empirical journal
• You have data, an experiment, or a computation and want to know if it can go to JET
• Choosing which of several results to lead with

The JET scope gate

JET publishes across **mechanism design, information economics, decision theory, game theory,

matching, market design, political economy, and finance / macroeconomic / monetary theory** —

broad general theory in one venue, not a subfield niche. The single deciding criterion is a

rigorous, original theoretical contribution. Ask three questions:

1. Is the core deliverable a theorem (or a genuinely new model/characterization)? If the headline

is a regression coefficient or a calibration with no new theoretical result, JET is off-fit —

regardless of how clean the empirics are.

1. Is it original and non-trivial? A restatement of a known result, or a special case of an existing

theorem, will not clear the desk screen (see jet-review-process).

1. **If there is empirical / experimental / quantitative / computational content, is it *firmly grounded

in theory? JET admits such work only* as the application or test of a theoretical contribution

that is itself the paper's point — not as a stand-alone empirical paper.

Decision rule

• Lead with the theory. State the result you would put in the abstract as a proposition/theorem.

If you cannot, the project is not yet a JET paper.

• Generality vs. tractability. A clean result under transparent assumptions usually beats a more

general result that no referee can verify (see jet-identification-strategy).

• Subfield routing. Name the area early — submissions are routed to the matching editor.

Deliverable-type scope table

| Your core deliverable | JET verdict | If off-fit, reroute |

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

| New characterization / existence / impossibility theorem in a core area | in scope — lead with it | — |

| Counterexample overturning a folk presumption | in scope when the presumption matters to a literature | frame the economics of why the presumption mattered |

| New solution concept or preference axiomatization | in scope; expect heavy scrutiny of the axioms' behavioral content | — |

| Asset-pricing result whose substance is stochastic-analysis machinery (semimartingales, no-arbitrage functional analysis) | usually a better fit at a mathematical-finance venue; JET wants the economics of the theorem | finance theory belongs at JET when incentives, information, or equilibrium do the work |

| Structural estimation / calibration exercise | off-fit regardless of model quality | empirical or quantitative-macro journals |

| Market-design algorithm with performance proofs | in scope when the theorem is the contribution | otherwise an OR/CS venue |

Vignette: a matching project at the gate

A team holds (i) a stability-existence theorem for matching with regional constraints, (ii)

simulations on synthetic data, and (iii) a policy application. Running the three questions:

• Q1: yes — the existence theorem is the deliverable; the simulations and policy story are not.
• Q2: check against the closest constrained-matching theorem before claiming novelty; if the

result is a special case of a published substitutes condition, it will not clear the screen.

• Q3: the simulations only exhibit the constrained core's shape, so they compress into one

numbered Example with a script (jet-data-analysis).

Verdict: JET-ready — lead with the theorem, demote the policy narrative to one motivation

paragraph, and name "matching / market design" for editor routing.

Lead-result selection when you have several

• Prefer the result whose assumptions are cleanest to state, even if a sibling result is

technically harder — the lead theorem is what the desk screen reads.

• A characterization beats an existence result as the headline when both are proved; existence can

follow as a corollary section.

• Never lead with the comparative static if the underlying equilibrium object is itself new.

Anti-patterns

• An applied-micro or finance paper with a token model bolted on
• A computational exercise with no characterization result behind it
• A marginal generalization of a published theorem framed as new

Output format

【Core result】<the theorem/characterization in one sentence>
【Scope fit】in-scope theory area: <area> | off-fit: <why>
【Empirical/computational content】none | grounded-in-theory | stand-alone (off-fit)
【Verdict】JET-ready / reframe / send elsewhere → jet-literature-positioning