jape-literature-positioning

Literature Positioning for JAE (jape-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• Drafting or revising the related-work framing for a JAE paper
• Deciding which methodological and applied precedents to foreground
• Making sure your positioning reflects JAE's emphasis on replicable applied work

Position on two axes at once

JAE values an application on real data that advances or rigorously tests a technique. Position simultaneously on:

1. Method lineage — cite the econometric technique(s) you apply or extend, and the canonical references for the estimator/inference you use. Make clear what you adopt unchanged vs. adapt.
2. Applied / substantive lineage — cite prior empirical work on the same question or data, and say precisely what your application adds: new data, a new design, more credible inference, a resolved puzzle.

Because JAE runs a Replication Article track and a Data Archive of ~1,487 datasets, its culture rewards engagement with prior replicable evidence. If your result revisits a published finding, position relative to that paper's archived data/code and state whether you confirm, qualify, or overturn it.

Free Format and references

JAE accepts references "in any style or format, as long as it is consistent throughout the manuscript" and allows Free Format first submission. Positioning is about substance and consistency, not house style — pick one style, keep it uniform, and do not stall on a template.

Archive-aware positioning

When a prior JAE or applied-econometrics paper has public data/code, do not cite it only as background. Use the archive trail to sharpen the contribution:

• If you reuse the design, say which archived sample, variables, or code paths are retained.
• If you update the evidence, state whether new data, corrected coding, or a different inference method changes the original conclusion.
• If you extend a method, explain what the old archive could not test and what your new package will let readers inspect.
• If replication fails, separate data drift, implementation differences, and substantive disagreement.

This turns literature positioning into an empirical audit trail, which is closer to JAE's culture than a generic related-work survey.

Four citation strata a JAE bibliography carries

Audit the reference list against these strata; a JAE submission that is thin in any one reads as mis-positioned:

Stratum	What it contains	Failure mode if absent
Estimator/inference canon	The original method papers plus the inference refinements you actually use (HAC, wild bootstrap, weak-IV)	Referees assume you applied the method naively
Applied precedent	Prior empirical answers to the same question, with their designs and magnitudes	"What does this add?" is unanswerable
JAE-corpus neighbors	Related JAE papers, ideally with archived data/code you can point to	Editor cannot see why this venue
Replication target (if any)	The specific published paper revisited, with its archive entry	The Replication Article framing collapses

Worked positioning sketch: revisiting an archived result (illustrative)

Suppose a 2015 JAE paper found money-demand elasticity −0.45 using quarterly G7 data through 2012, with data and programs in the archive. A strong positioning paragraph states: which archived series and code paths you reuse unchanged (their sample construction), what you change (extend to 2024; replace HAC with wild bootstrap for the short country panel), and the outcome (elasticity −0.41 on their sample — a confirmation — but −0.22 post-2015, a qualification). That single paragraph does the work of three survey pages — the positioning shape JAE's archive culture exists to enable.

Pushback: "incremental application" — the JAE counter

When a referee writes that the paper is X-applied-to-new-data, do not pile on citations. Sharpen the audit trail: name the precedent paper whose conclusion your application tests, show where its archived evidence stops (sample end, inference choice, omitted heterogeneity), and state which of confirm / qualify / overturn your result delivers. At JAE, position against reproducible evidence, not abstract literatures — a gap defined by what an existing archive package cannot show is the most defensible gap claim here.

Positioning map block

Method canon: [refs] — adopted unchanged: [...] / adapted: [...]
Applied precedent: [refs] — their finding: [...] — your delta: [...]
JAE neighbors: [refs] — archive entries consulted: [Y/N]
Replication target: [ref or N/A] — verdict: confirm / qualify / overturn

Output format

【Method lineage】key technique refs cited? [Y/N]
【Applied lineage】prior empirics engaged? [Y/N]
【Replication tie】revisits a published result? archive acknowledged? [Y/N/NA]
【Strata】all four citation strata covered? [Y/N]
【Gap】application/replication advance in one sentence
【Refs】single consistent style? [Y/N]

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Free Format and Data Archive sources