red-topic-selection

Topic Selection for RED (red-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• Deciding whether a paper is "a RED paper" before investing in it
• A dynamic-macro idea that could also go to a general-interest or a field journal
• Worried the question is too static, too purely empirical, or too applied-micro for RED's lens

What RED actually wants

RED publishes meritorious original contributions to dynamic economics, and its scope is set by

method/lens, not subfield. In-scope work studies a mechanism through a dynamic model — and that

model may be theoretical, computational, or empirical:

• Dynamic general-equilibrium (DSGE) and heterogeneous-agent models
• Growth, business cycles, and economic fluctuations
• Labor dynamics, search/matching, human capital over the life cycle
• Monetary and fiscal policy in dynamic environments
• International macro and open-economy dynamics
• Any area of economics where the dynamics are the point and a dynamic model carries the argument

Crucially, heavily computational quantitative work is squarely in scope — RED is one of the natural

homes for simulation-intensive macro. The SED community (the people behind the SED Annual Meetings) is

the readership; pitch to them.

Quick fit test

• [ ] Is the dynamic mechanism the core contribution (not incidental)?
• [ ] Does a dynamic model carry the argument (theory, computation, or empirical dynamics)?
• [ ] Would the SED audience see this as advancing dynamic economics?
• [ ] Is the contribution quantitative/structural rather than a one-off reduced-form correlation?

If the dynamics are cosmetic, or the paper is a static cross-section, RED is likely the wrong lens —

reframe around the dynamic mechanism or choose another venue.

Wrong-venue redirects

• Mostly reduced-form policy estimate with no dynamic model -> field journal or applied-economics outlet.
• Pure econometric method with no dynamic-economics object -> methods/econometrics outlet.
• Broad macro paper whose contribution is policy relevance rather than dynamic mechanism -> generalist macro

or policy journal.

• Calibration exercise with no new mechanism, method, or disciplined moment -> revise before targeting RED.

Dynamic-mechanism test

Write the candidate contribution in this form:

Because [state variable] evolves through [law of motion/friction], [shock/policy/choice] changes
[future object], generating [quantitative/theoretical implication].

If the sentence still works after deleting the law of motion, the paper may not be a RED paper. If the

result depends on dynamics but the model is not disciplined by moments, proofs, or computation, route to

red-data-analysis before drafting.

Fit-scoring pass

Score each dimension 0–2 before committing the project to RED:

| Dimension | 0 | 1 | 2 |

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

| Dynamics | static comparison | dynamics present but incidental | transition/fluctuation is the object |

| Model | none or a sketch | calibrated model supports a side result | dynamic model carries the headline claim |

| Discipline | parameters chosen freely | partial targets | explicit calibration/estimation against moments |

| Audience | generalist or policy | field-adjacent | SED community would discuss it at the Annual Meeting |

Illustrative read: 7–8 → proceed; 5–6 → strengthen the weak dimension first (usually Discipline); ≤4 →

re-scope or pick another venue. The thresholds are working heuristics, not journal policy.

Scoring vignette: a household-finance idea

"Mortgage refinancing frictions and consumption." Version A regresses spending on rate gaps: Dynamics 1,

Model 0, Discipline 0, Audience 1 → not a RED paper. Version B builds a life-cycle model with a fixed

refinancing cost, calibrates that cost to observed refinancing hazards, and quantifies the mortgage

channel of monetary transmission: Dynamics 2, Model 2, Discipline 2, Audience 2 → squarely in scope. Same

topic, different lens — the venue decision turns on version B's dynamic model, not on the subject matter.

Anti-patterns

• Bolting a token dynamic equation onto an essentially static result
• Assuming RED only takes theory, or only takes empirics (it takes both, through a dynamic lens)
• Pitching to a generalist audience instead of the SED community

Output format

[RED fit] strong / possible / weak
[Dynamic mechanism] <state variable, law of motion, or equilibrium force>
[Model discipline] theory / computation / calibration / estimation / missing
[Best route] RED / generalist macro / field journal / methods outlet
[Next step] red-contribution-framing or red-data-analysis

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — RED scope sources