ectheory-contribution-framing

Contribution Framing (ectheory-contribution-framing)

When to trigger

• The result is proved but the introduction buries what is actually new and general
• You cannot state the main theorem and its scope in two or three sentences
• Deciding how to frame for a full Article (multiple contributions) vs a Miscellanea (one or two)
• You want to align with ET's Jan-2026 themed directions or the discussion-paper format

How to frame a theory contribution for ET

ET readers reward a clearly stated, general result whose importance is obvious from the statement. Frame the contribution in this order:

1. The problem in econometrics the result speaks to (an inference problem, a limit gap, a robustness failure), stated for a theorist who will recognize it instantly.
2. The theorem in words, then the scope: under what assumptions, in what environment (stationary/nonstationary, fixed/growing dimension), with what limiting behavior.
3. The generality delta — what special cases collapse to known results, and what is genuinely new.
4. Consequences — what becomes provable, computable, or robust because of this result; how it changes practice or further theory.

For an Article, the frame should foreground multiple contributions and the proof program; for a Miscellanea, foreground the single sharp innovation, stated and proved concisely (~15 pages).

Aligning with the current editorial program

From January 2026, ET (Editors-in-Chief Guggenberger, Su, Sun) emphasizes invited papers with discussions and themed special issues — econometric theory for ML/AI, causal inference under complex interference, robust inference and partial identification, high-dimensional and non-standard environments, network/spatial econometrics. If your result speaks to one of these, frame the contribution so that fit is explicit. The biennial Peter C. B. Phillips Award (best paper by a scholar within 6 years of their first PhD) is a recognition program, not a submission track.

Checklist

• Main theorem stated in words plus its scope, in the first page or two
• Generality delta vs known special cases made explicit
• Consequences for theory/practice stated, not just the formal result
• Article vs Miscellanea framing matched to the number of contributions
• Themed-direction fit articulated where applicable
• No overclaim beyond what the assumptions deliver (see ectheory-identification-strategy)

Anti-patterns

• An introduction that recounts the proof steps before stating what is proved
• Hiding the main result on page 8 behind setup and notation
• Framing a single corollary as if it carried a full Article
• Claiming broad generality the theorem's assumptions do not support
• Treating the invited ET Interview or the Phillips Award as a submission target

What an ET editor weighs in the first reading pass

The desk screen asks whether the theorem itself is the contribution. Econometric Theory's identity is rigorous limit theory, so the introduction must read as a theorist's claim, not an empiricist's motivation.

Framing signal	Reads as ET-grade	Desk-reject risk
Lead sentence	"We establish the limiting distribution of ... under ..."	"We study an important applied problem ..."
Object	A theorem with stated mode, rate, limiting law	An estimate, a dataset finding, a software release
Generality delta	Named special case collapsing to a known result	"Extends the literature", no assumption change
Role of simulation	Illustration that the asymptotics bite	The empirical application carries the paper

Desk-reject patterns for theory framing: a relabelled corollary of a known limit theorem; a "new estimator" with no distribution theory (rate only); an abstract that never states what is proved.

Worked vignette and the framing fixes

Suppose the result is an FCLT for a long-run-variance estimator in a mildly explosive autoregression. The ET introduction states the problem (standard estimators turn inconsistent once the root crosses unity), the theorem in words (weak convergence to a Brownian functional under primitive conditions), the generality delta (an earlier paper's i.i.d.-innovation case is the special case recovered), and the consequences (a size-correct explosive-root test as a corollary). Referee pushback maps to fixes: "special case of [prior FCLT]" → a labelled remark naming the weakened assumption and the corollary; "the contribution is the application" → re-lead with the theorem (route ectheory-data-analysis); "overclaimed scope" → narrow to what the assumptions deliver. Confirm exact length limits and themed-issue specifics against the journal's current author guidelines.

Output format

【Problem】the econometric inference/limit problem addressed
【Theorem in words】+ scope (assumptions, environment, limit)
【Generality delta】new vs known special cases
【Consequences】what becomes provable/robust/computable
【Frame】Article (multi-contribution) / Miscellanea (one or two)
【Themed fit】direction (if any)
【Next step】ectheory-data-analysis