---

name: red-topic-selection description: Use when testing whether a research question fits the Review of Economic Dynamics (RED) — a journal whose scope is defined by method and lens (dynamic, quantitative economics) rather than subfield. Helps decide if the paper studies a genuinely dynamic mechanism through a dynamic model, and whether it belongs at RED versus a generalist or a specialist outlet.

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 — RED scope sources