Topic Selection & Fit (eer-topic-selection)

SkillAI & models

Use when deciding whether a question is a fit for the European Economic Review (EER), general-interest across all of economics, rather than a field journal, JEEA, or The Economic Journal. Diagnoses fit and reframes for breadth; it does not build the identification or the model.

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.

Then ask your AI: use the Topic Selection & Fit (eer-topic-selection) skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills in European-Economic-Review-Skills/skills/eer-topic-selection/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

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

SignalReadingMove
Result changes how non-specialists think about a first-order questionStrong EER fitproceed to eer-literature-positioning
Solid identification but narrow policy/sector relevanceBorderline — reframe for breadth or consider a field journalreframe, then eer-literature-positioning
Incremental extension of one literature, specialists onlyWeak EER fitbroaden the question or target a field outlet
Pure theory with a clean, general resultEER fits (theory is in scope)eer-theory-model
About Europe but of only local interestTopic ≠ scope problemrecast around the general economic mechanism

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

OutletIdentityPick it when
EERElsevier general-interest, all fields, long-standingbroad-interest result, theory or empirical, no society gate
JEEAThe EEA's own flagship (Oxford UP)you want the EEA society flagship; comparably broad, more selective slot
The Economic JournalRES flagship (Oxford UP)RES-oriented general-interest home
Elsevier field journal (e.g., JME, Labour Economics, JPubE)field-specialist depththe 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)

Signals

GitHub stars
1k
Forks
155
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Item type
skill
Key
eer-topic-selection
Source
github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills