---

name: ecj-topic-selection description: Use when scoping or framing a research question for a The Economic Journal (EJ) manuscript and you need to test whether it is "EJ-shaped" — a substantial contribution of broad interest to economists at large, full-length or short-paper. Diagnoses fit and frames the contribution; it does not design the empirics.

Topic Selection & Fit (ecj-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• You have data or a result but not yet a sharp, broadly interesting economic question
• You are unsure whether the paper belongs at EJ, a field journal, or a top-5
• The pitch is "X is correlated with Y" with no mechanism, or a narrow result only specialists would read
• You are deciding between a full-length article and EJ's short-paper (AER:Insights-style) route

The EJ fit test

EJ (founded 1891, the Royal Economic Society's flagship, published by Oxford University Press; editor-in-chief Francesco Lippi, verified 2026-06-20) publishes the full breadth of economics — theory and applied — for a broad international readership. Its stated bar is that a paper be technically well-crafted, make a substantial contribution, and be of broad interest to economists at large. Score the idea against these five questions before committing:

1. Broad interest — Would an economist outside your subfield care about the answer? EJ's defining bar is general relevance, not just field novelty.
2. Substantial contribution — Does it move understanding, not just add a data point? "First to use dataset D" is not a contribution.
3. Mechanism / economics — Can you state the economic mechanism in one sentence, and does the paper illuminate why, not only whether?
4. Craft — Is the design / model technically sound enough to survive a demanding referee? Broad interest does not excuse weak identification.
5. Exposition potential — Can the idea be made legible to a generalist? At EJ, clear exposition is part of the contribution; an unreadable paper underperforms its substance.

If you score high on broad interest and substantial contribution (1 and 2) plus craft (4), it is plausibly EJ-shaped. If the idea is essentially "we ran a clean DID on niche policy P," it is a field-journal paper until you supply the general lesson and the mechanism.

Full-length vs. the short-paper (AER:Insights-style) route

EJ explicitly welcomes short papers in the AER:Insights style — <6,000 words and 5 exhibits (verified 2026-06-20). Choose deliberately:

• Short paper: one crisp, surprising, well-identified result that needs little scaffolding; a single clean idea a generalist grasps fast. Do not pad it to full length.
• Full-length article: a result that needs a model, multiple designs, mechanism evidence, and counterfactuals to land; or a theory paper with developed propositions.
• A sharp self-contained finding buried inside an over-built full-length draft is often a stronger short paper — rescope rather than bloat.

EJ vs. neighbors (route before drafting)

• EJ proper: broad relevance + clear exposition; theory and applied both core; short-paper option available.
• The Econometrics Journal (also RES): if the contribution is methodological/econometric with no substantive application, it fits better there.
• JEEA / EER: European general-interest siblings; comparable breadth — pick on fit and audience, not prestige alone.
• Top-5: if the result is genuinely field-moving and important, aim higher; EJ is the right home for excellent, broadly interesting work a notch below that frontier.

Contribution framing (do this before writing the intro)

State the contribution as a numbered set of claims, each tied to economics and broad relevance:

• Claim 1 (the economics): what economic force / margin the paper identifies and why it was not obvious.
• Claim 2 (the evidence or theory): how you establish it (model result, structural estimate, or credibly identified effect).
• Claim 3 (the broad lesson): what the result implies beyond this setting — for theory, policy, or other fields.

Checklist

• One-sentence question that a non-specialist economist would find interesting
• The substantial contribution stated (not a data/method "first")
• The economic mechanism written down and falsifiable
• The broad/portable lesson stated, beyond the specific setting
• Full-length vs. short-paper (AER:Insights-style) decision made and justified
• EJ vs. The Econometrics Journal / field outlet / top-5 decision made
• Contribution drafted as economic claims, not dataset novelty

Anti-patterns

• A narrow result of interest only to one subfield — fails EJ's broad-interest bar
• An atheoretical correlation dressed up with controls and no mechanism
• Claiming novelty from a dataset rather than from an economic insight
• Padding a single clean result to full length when the short-paper route fits better
• Sending a purely methodological/econometric paper to EJ proper instead of The Econometrics Journal
• Assuming a top-5-rejected paper is automatically "EJ-shaped" without re-checking breadth and craft

Output format

【Question】one-sentence, broadly-interesting economic question
【Substantial contribution】what understanding moves
【Mechanism】the economic channel
【Broad lesson】what economics learns beyond this setting
【Format】full-length / short paper (AER:Insights-style) (+ why)
【Outlet】EJ / The Econometrics Journal / field journal / top-5 (+ why)
【Contribution claims】1... 2... 3...
【Fit verdict】EJ-shaped / reframe / field journal
【Next】ecj-literature-positioning