European economic review

European Economic Review (european-economic-review)

Journal positioning

EER is a long-standing general-economics journal historically associated with the European economics community, publishing across all fields — micro, macro, labor, public, IO, trade, development — in both theory and empirics. It is a strong general field journal: it wants a clear question, a sound method, and a result that is interesting to economists beyond the immediate subfield, without requiring the discipline-wide reach of a top-5. The readership is broad, so framing should be general-economics rather than narrowly specialist.

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 Elsevier site and the editorial submission system.

When to trigger

• The author names EER as the target venue, or wants a broad general-economics home below the top-5.
• A solid paper of general interest needs a venue that takes both theory and empirics seriously across fields.
• A field paper needs re-framing so its contribution reads as broadly interesting economics rather than niche.
• The author needs EER's desk-reject risks and a credible general / European alternative list.

Scope & topic fit

• General economics across all fields: theory, applied micro, macro, public, labor, IO, trade, development, behavioral.
• Both rigorous theory papers and credible empirical papers are in scope; methodological breadth is a feature.
• Papers with a clear economic question whose interest extends beyond a single specialist community.
• Policy-relevant and European-context work is welcome but must carry a general-economics contribution, not just local description.

Method & evidence bar

• Empirical papers need a defensible identification strategy; correlation framed as a causal effect without design is a fast rejection.
• Theory papers need clearly stated assumptions and results that are general and consequential, not a narrow extension.
• Standard modern rigor applies: appropriate estimators, correct inference, and pre-empted confounders for empirical work; clean proofs for theory.
• The contribution should be legible to a general economist, with mechanism and interpretation, not only significant coefficients.

Structure & house style

• The introduction states the question, the contribution, the approach, and the headline result early, and explains the general-economics interest.
• Position against the relevant literature explicitly; "first to study X" is not a contribution.
• EER uses an unstructured abstract and JEL codes; an online appendix carries robustness, proofs, and secondary results.
• Exhibits should be self-contained and report interpretable magnitudes, not only test statistics.

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 "European Economic Review guide for authors / submission guidelines" and follow the current Elsevier version.
• Re-check submission fee, formatting, abstract/JEL requirements, anonymization, and figure/table standards on the submission system.
• Re-check the current data and code availability / replication policy.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• One sentence stating why a general economist (not just a specialist) should care.
• The contribution is stated as identification / theory / measurement, not as statistical significance.
• The introduction positions the paper against the relevant frontier across fields, not only within a niche.
• Identification or proofs meet current standards; inference and robustness are in place.
• Data, code, and appendix match the current official guide.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A purely local/descriptive paper with no general-economics contribution.
• Reduced-form correlation presented as a causal effect with no credible design.
• A narrow theory extension with no general or consequential implication.
• Significance treated as the finding, with mechanism and interpretation left thin.

Re-routing decision

• General-interest at the top → american-economic-review; European general-interest flagship → journal-of-the-european-economic-association.
• Field-leading work → the relevant field journal (journal-of-public-economics, journal-of-labor-economics, journal-of-international-economics, journal-of-development-economics).
• Quantitative macro → review-of-economic-dynamics or journal-of-monetary-economics; pure theory → journal-of-economic-theory; applied micro with strong identification → journal-of-human-resources or international-economic-review.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] European Economic Review
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does the identification / theory clear EER's general-field bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <submission system / fee / JEL / data-code policy / exhibits>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>