Experimental Economics (experimental-economics)

Journal positioning

Experimental Economics is the journal of the Economic Science Association (the ESA), the leading specialist outlet for experimental methods in economics. It rewards papers in which a carefully designed experiment — lab or field — answers a question about behavior, institutions, or theory that observational data cannot cleanly identify. The readership is experimental and behavioral economists who scrutinize design, incentive-compatibility, and replicability, so the experiment itself is the core of the contribution.

This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the ESA / Springer site and the editorial submission system.

When to trigger

• The author names Experimental Economics (or the ESA outlet) as the target venue.
• A paper's central evidence is an experiment and the design is the contribution.
• A behavioral or theory-testing paper needs re-framing so the experimental design and incentives are foregrounded.
• The author needs this venue's desk-reject risks and a credible experimental / behavioral alternative list.

Scope & topic fit

• Laboratory experiments testing theory, preferences, learning, or institutional rules.
• Field and lab-in-the-field experiments on economic behavior and institutions.
• Behavioral economics: social preferences, risk/time, bounded rationality, with experimental identification.
• Mechanism/market-design and game-theoretic predictions tested experimentally; methodological and replication contributions.

Method & evidence bar

• Experimental design is the filter: clear hypotheses, appropriate treatments and controls, randomization, and adequate power.
• Incentive-compatibility and salient monetary incentives are expected; the procedure must rule out confounds and demand effects.
• Pre-registration and pre-analysis plans are increasingly the norm; replication and direct/conceptual replication studies are valued.
• Analysis must use appropriate inference (e.g., correct treatment of clustering at the session/group level) and report effect sizes, not only significance.

Structure & house style

• The introduction states the research question, the theoretical prediction or hypothesis, the design, and the headline result early, and says why an experiment is the right tool.
• Document the design fully: instructions, treatments, sample, incentives, and procedures should be transparent and reproducible (often via an appendix with full instructions).
• Uses an unstructured abstract, JEL codes, and frequently an explicit statement of pre-registration status.
• Exhibits report treatment effects with effect sizes and uncertainty; the central comparison should be readable from one figure or table.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Experimental Economics submission guidelines / instructions for authors" and follow the current ESA/Springer version.
• Re-check formatting, abstract/JEL requirements, anonymization, and the requirement to include experimental instructions and procedures.
• Re-check the current data and code / replication-material deposit policy, pre-registration disclosure, and ethics/IRB requirements.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• One sentence stating why an experiment (not observational data) is necessary to answer this question.
• The contribution is stated as a designed treatment effect / mechanism test, not as statistical significance.
• The design (treatments, incentives, power, randomization) is fully documented and reproducible.
• Pre-registration status and IRB/ethics are disclosed; inference handles session/group clustering.
• Full instructions, data, and code are ready for the official deposit.

Common desk-reject triggers

• An experiment with no clear hypothesis, weak incentives, or hypothetical (non-incentivized) choices presented as the main evidence.
• Underpowered designs or inference that ignores session/group-level dependence.
• Demand effects or confounds left uncontrolled by the design.
• "First to run this experiment" with no theoretical or methodological advance.

Re-routing decision

• General-interest at the top with an experimental result → american-economic-review; broad general field → european-economic-review.
• Game-theory / mechanism-design predictions with theory as the core → games-and-economic-behavior; pure theory → journal-of-economic-theory.
• Field-experiment policy evaluation on labor/education/health → journal-of-human-resources or journal-of-health-economics; econometrics of experiments → journal-of-applied-econometrics or international-economic-review.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Experimental Economics
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does the experimental design clear this venue's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <submission system / instructions / pre-registration / IRB / data-code>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>