agentsclimarketplace

Jebo literature positioning

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Journal-of-Economic-Behavior-and-Organization-Skills/skills/jebo-literature-positioning

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jebo-literature-positioning

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when staking a Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (JEBO) manuscript's contribution against the behavioral, experimental, and organizational literatures. Builds the "what we knew / what was missing / what this adds" frame and a replication/extension stance; it does not invent citations.

SKILL.md

4.8 KB, 932 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Literature Positioning (jebo-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

  • The intro lists prior work but never says what was missing
  • A referee will ask "how is this different from [the obvious prior experiment]?" and you have no crisp answer
  • The paper replicates or extends a known result and you need to position that honestly
  • The contribution spans two literatures (e.g., social preferences + organizational design) and the bridge is unclear

How JEBO referees read a contribution

JEBO referees come from several traditions (behavioral, experimental, evolutionary, organizational), so the positioning must speak to whichever community owns the result while remaining legible to the others. The journal values cumulative, mechanism-level progress: a paper earns its place by sharpening, bounding, reconciling, or overturning a specific behavioral claim, not by being the first to run a particular task. Because JEBO publishes replications and close extensions more readily than top-5 general-interest journals, an honest "we replicate X and show it breaks under condition Y" is a legitimate, publishable contribution — but only if positioned as such, not disguised as wholly novel.

Build the frame in three moves:

  1. What we knew. Name the 2–4 anchor results the paper builds on, by mechanism, not by author-name-dropping. ("Other-regarding preferences predict positive giving in dictator games; giving falls under earned endowments and social distance.")
  2. What was missing or contested. The gap must be a behavioral gap — an untested moderator, an unmodeled belief, an unresolved tension between two findings, a mechanism never separated from a confound — not merely "no one used my dataset."
  3. What this adds. State the increment in one sentence and match it to evidence the paper actually delivers.

Contribution archetypes JEBO accepts

ArchetypeWhat positions it wellFailure mode
New mechanism / moderatorshows a previously-unidentified driver of a known behavior"novelty" that is really a re-label of a known effect
Reconciliationresolves a tension between two prior findings with a unifying designcherry-picking which prior result to cite
Bounded replicationreplicates and maps the boundary conditions of an influential resulthiding that it is a replication to seem more novel
Field test of a lab regularitytakes a lab effect to a consequential field/organizational settingclaiming external validity the design cannot support
Theory→prediction→testderives and tests a sharp behavioral predictiontesting a prediction so loose any result confirms it

Positioning the replication/extension stance

If the paper is partly a replication, say so in the intro and frame the value added — new population, new incentive scale, new moderator, pre-registered confirmation of a contested result. JEBO referees punish disguised replications far more than honest ones.

Checklist

  • "What we knew / what was missing / what this adds" stated in three sentences, organized by mechanism
  • The gap is behavioral and specific, not "no prior paper used this data/task"
  • Anchor literature spans the relevant JEBO communities the result must satisfy
  • If a replication/extension, it is labeled as such with the value-added named
  • The claimed increment matches the evidence delivered later in the paper
  • Citations are real; no invented exemplar papers (verify before asserting)

Anti-patterns

  • A literature review that summarizes papers serially instead of building toward the gap
  • Inflating novelty by ignoring the closest prior experiment a referee will instantly recall
  • A disguised replication presented as wholly new
  • Positioning only within one tradition when the result must also satisfy a neighboring JEBO community
  • Bridging two literatures with a hand-wave instead of an explicit mechanism-level link

Output format

【Journal】Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
【Skill】jebo-literature-positioning
【What we knew】<anchor results by mechanism>
【What was missing】<specific behavioral gap>
【What this adds】<one-sentence increment>
【Archetype】mechanism / reconciliation / replication / field test / theory-test
【Replication stance】novel / honest extension / bounded replication
【Source status】citations verified / 待核实
【Next skill】jebo-identification

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.