smr-method-contribution

SMR Method Contribution

Use this to make the contribution explicit, proportional, and adoptable. SMR reviewers reward a

method that a working researcher can pick up and run; they punish vague "we propose a framework"

claims and overreaching generality.

The contribution sentence (write this before anything else)

Fill both brackets, no hedging:

> *Researchers who study [problem/setting] can now [do X they could not do, or stop doing Y that

> misled them], because we [develop / evaluate / correct] [the method] under [the conditions].*

If the second bracket is "get a slightly different number," the contribution is too thin. If it is

"do everything," it is overclaimed. The right size is **one named problem, one named method, one

named condition set**.

Position against the incumbent, not the void

Every SMR method displaces or repairs something. State the incumbent and its failure precisely:

• What practitioners do now (the default method, named).
• Where it breaks (a concrete regime: few clusters, weak instruments, non-invariance, MAR

failure, short panels, sparse networks, small df) — with the symptom a user would observe.

• Why your method fixes it (the mechanism: orthogonalization, bias correction, a weaker

assumption, a better small-sample approximation, a new estimand).

• What it costs (extra assumptions, computation, data requirements) — honest costs build trust.

A contribution framed only against "the literature" reads as throat-clearing; one framed against a

named default that fails in a named regime reads as a methods paper.

Contribution-type templates

| Type | The claim must specify | The reviewer will check |

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

| New estimator | estimand, consistency conditions, efficiency vs. incumbent | does it beat the incumbent where the incumbent is valid? |

| New diagnostic/test | null, alternative, size, power region | size control under the null; power where it matters |

| Evaluation paper | methods compared, DGP space, decision rule | are the realistic regimes covered, not a strawman? |

| Critique + fix | the hidden assumption, the misuse, the correction | is the corrected procedure actually usable? |

| Computational tool | what it makes feasible, accuracy/scaling | does it match the exact method or approximate it? |

Proportionality guardrails

• Claim a leading case, then say what does not extend. Reviewers trust authors who bound their

own claims.

• Distinguish "we prove" from "we show by simulation" from "we conjecture." Never let a simulated

result wear the language of a theorem.

• Resist the "general framework" frame unless you genuinely deliver generality with proofs; a sharp

special case beats a vague general one at SMR.

Checklist

• [ ] The contribution sentence is written with both brackets filled and no hedging.
• [ ] The named incumbent method and its concrete failure regime are stated.
• [ ] The fix mechanism is named (not just "performs better").
• [ ] The honest cost of the method (assumptions/computation/data) is stated.
• [ ] Proof-backed claims are separated from simulation-backed and conjectured claims.
• [ ] The claim is bounded: what does not extend is stated.

Anti-patterns

• Framework inflation: "we develop a general framework" with no estimand, no theorem, no usable

procedure.

• Strawman incumbent: beating a method no one uses, or using it outside its stated domain.
• Mislabelled evidence: presenting Monte Carlo regularities as proven properties.
• Cost concealment: hiding the extra assumption or the computational burden the method requires.
• Undifferentiated novelty: a variant whose advantage over the closest existing method is never

pinned to a specific regime.

Output format

[Contribution sentence] <filled template>
[Incumbent + failure regime] <named method -> where it breaks>
[Fix mechanism] <orthogonalization / bias correction / weaker assumption / new estimand / ...>
[Honest cost] <assumptions / computation / data>
[Evidence type per claim] proved / simulated / conjectured
[Next SMR skill] smr-literature-positioning