From jape-skills
Evaluates whether a research project fits the Journal of Applied Econometrics (JAE) by testing scope, replicability, and article track (Research vs. Replication).
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jape-skills:jape-topic-selectionThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- Choosing where to send an empirical or method-application paper and weighing JAE
JAE publishes applied econometrics: papers that apply and develop econometric techniques on real data, with the focus on the application rather than pure econometric theory. A purely theoretical contribution (a new estimator with asymptotics but no real-data application) is off-fit — route it to a methods/theory outlet. A good JAE topic does one of:
Because accepted papers must deposit data and code in the JAE Data Archive (since 1994, now at ZBW, unless confidential), ask before you start: can the data behind every result be deposited as plain ASCII/CSV with a readme, or at minimum documented enough that others can apply for access? If the data can be neither shared nor described for access, the project is a poor JAE fit.
Score the candidate on five gates before drafting:
If any gate fails, redirect early. JAE fit is strongest when the data, method, and applied question are mutually necessary; it is weakest when one of the three can be removed without changing the paper.
Pattern-match the project against recurring candidate shapes:
| Project shape | JAE verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| New estimator + asymptotics + small empirical illustration | Borderline | Fit hinges on whether the application carries the paper; if the illustration is decorative, reroute to a theory/methods outlet |
| Established method, new real-data finding with credible inference | Strong fit | The venue's bread and butter — provided the deposit is feasible |
| Pure Monte Carlo comparison of estimators | Off-fit alone | Anchor the simulations to a real empirical problem or send to a methods journal |
| Re-examination of a prominent published result using its archived data | Strong fit (Replication Article) | The dedicated track exists exactly for this |
| Policy evaluation on administrative data that can never be shared or described | Poor fit | The mandatory archive deposit cannot be satisfied even via the confidential-data readme route |
The track rewards replications of prominent papers — results people teach, cite, or build policy on. Screen a target on four points: (i) the original's data are archived (ideally in the JAE Data Archive) or otherwise reconstructible; (ii) the claim is sharp enough that confirm/qualify/overturn is decidable; (iii) you can separate data-revision effects from coding differences from genuine fragility; (iv) a negative result would still be informative — JAE's track publishes failures as well as successes, which is rare and worth exploiting. Replicating an obscure paper, or one whose data are gone, fails the screen however careful the execution.
Candidate A: a new shrinkage estimator with proofs, demonstrated on one well-worn growth dataset where it barely changes the estimates. The real-data anchor is decorative — redirect to a methods venue, or find an application where shrinkage flips a conclusion. Candidate B: quarterly energy-demand elasticities for 14 countries, where switching from textbook HAC to a few-cluster-appropriate bootstrap moves the headline elasticity from "significant at 5%" to marginal — an applied question, an econometric lesson, public data exportable to CSV. B is the JAE paper despite A being technically deeper.
【Scope】applied on real data? [Y/N] | pure-theory risk? [Y/N]
【Replicable】data depositable or documentable? [Y/N]
【Lesson】method choice changes an applied conclusion? [Y/N]
【Track】Research Article / Replication Article
【Verdict】JAE fit / redirect → where
../../resources/official-source-map.md — JAE scope and Data Archive sourcesnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jape-skillsHelps authors assess manuscript fit for the Journal of Applied Econometrics, including framing, method/evidence bar, house style, and desk-reject heuristics.
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.
Helps decide whether an applied-economics project fits REStat vs other top journals and sharpen the question for REStat's empirical standards.