agentsclimarketplace

Restat literature positioning

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Review-of-Economics-and-Statistics-Skills/skills/restat-literature-positioning

Use when the marginal contribution of a The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat) manuscript against the closest prior work is fuzzy, generic, or oversold. Stakes the contribution precisely; it does not run analysis or write the full literature review.From its SKILL.md

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

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

SKILL.md

4.7 KB, ~1.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Literature Positioning (restat-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

  • The intro's "we contribute to several literatures" reads as a citation dump
  • A referee could ask "how is this different from [obvious prior paper]?" and you lack a one-line answer
  • The contribution is stated as a topic ("we study X") rather than a delta against named work
  • You are unsure whether your measurement / identification advance is genuinely new

The REStat positioning bar

REStat referees are applied economists who know the closest five papers cold. Positioning must be a precise delta against named work, not a tour of a literature. Because REStat prizes measurement and credible identification, the most persuasive deltas are of two kinds: (1) identification delta — your design credibly estimates a parameter prior work could only correlate or estimate under weaker assumptions; (2) measurement delta — you measure the object better (new data, less error, a validated index) and that changes an applied conclusion. "First to study" is rarely the contribution; "first to credibly identify / cleanly measure, and it overturns/sharpens [conclusion]" is.

How to stake the contribution

  1. Name the 3–5 closest papers — the ones a referee will compare you to first, by author-year.
  2. State the delta against each in one clause: what they did, what you do differently, why it matters.
  3. Classify your delta: new identification | better measurement | new setting that is itself informative | reconciles conflicting prior estimates.
  4. Quantify the stakes where possible: "prior estimates range 0.2–0.8 because of [bias]; our design pins it at [X]."
  5. State scope honestly: what your contribution does not claim (external validity, mechanism, generality).

Positioning patterns that land at REStat

PatternExample shape
Identification upgrade"Prior work used OLS/TWFE; we use [RD / IV / het-robust DID] and the estimate changes"
Measurement upgrade"Prior work proxied [X] with [noisy measure]; our better-measured [X] reverses the sign/magnitude"
Reconciliation"Estimates disagree across studies; we show the gap is [selection / measurement / specification]"
Better-powered / wider data"We bring [bigger / cleaner / linked] data that resolves an under-powered debate"
Applied use of a method"We apply [estimator] to [setting] where its assumptions hold, recovering [parameter]"

Checklist

  • 3–5 closest papers named by author-year, not just cited in a block
  • A one-clause delta stated against each closest paper
  • Delta classified (identification / measurement / setting / reconciliation)
  • Stakes quantified or sharply described (what changes if you are right)
  • Scope limits stated — what the contribution does NOT claim
  • No "first to study" claim doing the work a real delta should do

Anti-patterns

  • A literature tour (paragraphs of "X did A, Y did B, Z did C") with no delta
  • "First to study [topic]" as the contribution (REStat referees discount novelty-of-topic)
  • Overclaiming generality a single applied setting cannot support
  • Ignoring the single closest paper because it is inconvenient (referees will name it)
  • Citing methods papers to look sophisticated while the applied delta stays vague

Worked vignette: turning a tour into a delta (illustrative)

A draft opens: "A large literature studies the minimum wage's employment effects (A, B, C…). We add to this literature." A REStat referee reads that as no contribution. The fix is to name the single closest paper and state the delta: "Paper B estimated this with TWFE across staggered state increases and found a small disemployment effect; we re-estimate with a heterogeneity-robust estimator on the same variation and a better-measured teen-employment series, and the effect is statistically indistinguishable from zero — the earlier negative estimate was driven by forbidden comparisons and measurement error." That is a delta (identification + measurement) that reconciles a contested estimate, with stakes a referee can weigh.

Output format

【Closest prior work】[paper1 / paper2 / paper3 (/4/5)] by author-year
【Delta vs each】p1: [...]; p2: [...]; p3: [...]
【Delta type】identification | measurement | setting | reconciliation
【Stakes】what changes if we are right: [...]
【Scope NOT claimed】[...]
【Next step】restat-identification

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. 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.