ecta-topic-selection

Topic Selection and Contribution Fit (ecta-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• You have a model, an estimator, or a theorem but are unsure it clears the Econometrica bar
• The contribution reads like an application of a known method rather than a new method
• The result "works only for this example" and you suspect it needs more generality
• You cannot state the contribution in one sentence as a theorem or an estimator-plus-asymptotics

What Econometrica rewards

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?"

The generality test

Pressure-test the result before committing:

1. Scope. State the most general setting under which the result holds. If the proof only goes through for one parametric example, the contribution is an example, not a theorem.
2. Necessity of assumptions. For each assumption, ask: does the result fail without it? If an assumption is not used in the proof, drop it; if it is restrictive, justify it.
3. Payoff. What can a reader do with this that they could not before — estimate something previously inestimable, characterize behavior previously uncharacterized, weaken an assumption a classic result required?
4. Depth vs. incremental. Is this a genuinely new object/argument, or a marginal relaxation of a known theorem? Marginal relaxations need an outsized payoff to clear the bar.

Contribution statement template

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.

Checklist

• Contribution stated as a theorem or estimator-plus-asymptotics, not as an application
• Most general setting identified; not tied to one parametric example
• Every assumption is used somewhere in the argument and is defensible
• Clear payoff: what becomes possible / characterizable that was not before
• Honest placement: is this Econometrica-deep (method/theorem), or general-interest-applied (AER/QJE/JPE/REStud)?
• The contribution survives the eligibility screen: a new method/theorem/identification result, not an off-the-shelf application
• A concrete behavioral or inferential consequence is stated, not just a formal property

Anti-patterns

• A "method" that is a relabeling of an existing estimator with no new asymptotics
• Generality claimed in the intro but the proof only covers a single example
• An applied paper whose methodological contribution is thin, dressed up as a methods paper
• Assumptions stacked for convenience, several of them never used in any proof
• "Elegance" claimed with no comparison to the simpler existing result it supposedly beats

Output format

【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