From econometrica-skills
Evaluates whether a research paper meets Econometrica's standards of generality and methodological contribution. Useful for assessing fit and sharpening the contribution statement.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/econometrica-skills:ecta-topic-selectionThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You have a model, an estimator, or a theorem but are unsure it clears the Econometrica bar
Econometrica (Econometric Society / Wiley; founded 1933) is the field's flagship for econometric methods and rigorous economic theory, not applied "top-5" causal-inference papers. Its charter is the unification of the theoretical-quantitative and the empirical-quantitative approaches, penetrated by constructive and rigorous thinking. It prizes generality and elegance over narrow application; the product is a durable methodological or theoretical advance. Before investing, classify the paper:
| Paper type | What must be true to fit | Exemplar |
|---|---|---|
| Econometric theory | A new estimator / test / identification result with full asymptotic theory and finite-sample evidence | Hansen (1982, GMM); Newey–West (1987, HAC) |
| Microeconomic / game theory | New axioms or a new model yielding existence/uniqueness, comparative statics, and an economic payoff | game-theoretic equilibrium-existence results |
| Decision theory | A representation theorem (axioms ⇔ functional form) with behavioral content | Kahneman–Tversky (1979, prospect theory) |
| Structural / empirical | A method or identification argument that is itself the contribution, applied with rigor | Rust (1987, nested fixed point); Heckman (1979, selection) |
A paper that is "policy evaluation with off-the-shelf DID/RDD" or "a clever application with no new method" is off-fit, however well executed — redirect it to a general-interest applied journal (AER / QJE / JPE / REStud). This is the single most common Econometrica mismatch and a desk-reject trigger: at the eligibility/co-editor screen, "pure applied work lacking a methodological or identification innovation" is routinely returned. The right question is not "is this an important answer?" but "is the estimator, theorem, or identification argument itself the contribution?"
Pressure-test the result before committing:
Write the contribution as 2–4 precise sentences, in the paper's own notation:
We study [setting / class of models]. We show that [central theorem: object, conditions,
conclusion]. Relative to [closest prior result], this [weakens assumption X / covers case Y
/ delivers the limiting distribution / characterizes the representation]. The result implies
[economic / inferential payoff].
Avoid "we propose a method and show it works." Name the theorem and the assumption it relaxes.
【Paper type】econometric theory / micro-game-decision theory / structural-empirical
【Contribution (one sentence)】...
【Most general setting】...
【Closest prior result】...
【Payoff】...
【Fit verdict】Econometrica-fit / redirect to: ...
【Next step】ecta-literature-positioning
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin econometrica-skillsGuides selection of Econometric Theory contribution type: assesses if a result is foundational theory vs applied estimate, and whether to target a full Article or short Miscellanea.
Evaluates economics manuscripts for fit with Econometrica, covering venue selection, framing, method rigor, house style, and desk-reject risks.
Helps route econometrics manuscripts to the correct journal by comparing fit against EctJ's leading-case, applied-value bar versus alternatives like Journal of Econometrics or Econometric Theory.