From jbf-skills
Frames contribution claims for Journal of Banking & Finance papers to articulate why results matter for banking, financial intermediation, markets, regulation, or corporate finance.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jbf-skills:jbf-contribution-framingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The result is statistically solid but the paper does not say why JBF readers should care
A strong JBF contribution connects four elements:
We study [finance question] using [setting/design]. The key challenge is
[identification or measurement problem]. We address it by [variation/data/model],
and find [headline result with magnitude]. The paper contributes to JBF by
showing [mechanism/implication] for [banking/intermediation/markets/regulation].
Match the pitch to the JBF subfield the referee will come from:
| Subfield | What counts as the marginal contribution | Framing trap |
|---|---|---|
| Bank capital / liquidity regulation | Quantifying a Basel-style margin (CET1, LCR, NSFR) on lending or risk-taking with credible variation | Restating "capital affects lending" without a new margin or mechanism |
| Credit risk / default modeling | Out-of-sample gain over standard benchmarks plus an economic story for the gain | Pure horse-race accuracy with no intermediation insight |
| Bank performance / financial stability | A risk-taking or stability channel (Z-score, NPLs, tail risk) theory had not pinned down | Cross-country correlations sold as causal stability lessons |
| Market microstructure / liquidity | An institutional friction that changes measured liquidity or price discovery | Generic asset-pricing result with banks as labels |
| Fintech / sustainable finance | Evidence the new technology or ESG margin changes credit allocation or risk pricing | Novelty of the setting standing in for a finance mechanism |
Hypothetical draft: staggered state adoption of digital collateral registries and small-business lending, with DealScan-style loan-level data.
Accepted JBF empirical papers typically state the question, design, headline magnitude, and contribution within the first two pages, with one paragraph per literature delta (a stylized pattern, not a journal rule).
Before submission, answer these in the introduction, not only in the cover letter:
If the answer is "we have better data," route back to jbf-literature-positioning and jbf-data-analysis.
Better data become a contribution only after they identify a finance mechanism or revise a known result.
[One-sentence contribution] ...
[Mechanism] ...
[Why JBF] ...
[Magnitude] ...
[Boundary conditions] ...
[Next step] jbf-writing-style
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jbf-skillsFrames a JFI paper’s contribution around the institution, friction, mechanism, and consequence so it passes desk-rejection and reads as intermediation theory, not generic finance.
Positions a Journal of Banking & Finance manuscript against banking, intermediation, corporate finance, investments, regulation, and capital-market literatures to state a precise contribution.
Frames the marginal contribution of a Review of Finance manuscript into a defensible claim that top-three-standard referees will accept.