jel-literature-synthesis

Literature Synthesis (jel-literature-synthesis)

When to trigger

• The proposal was encouraged and it is time to read the field thoroughly
• Reading feels unsystematic; you fear missing important contributions
• You have many papers but no way to weigh, compare, or reconcile their findings
• A referee at JEL is likely to ask "why did you omit X / the Y literature?"

Coverage discipline: read the field, not a convenience sample

A JEL survey's credibility rests on the reader's belief that you read everything that matters. Build coverage systematically rather than from memory:

1. Seed set. Start from the proposal's key references and the field's canonical pieces.
2. Forward + backward snowball. Backward: every paper's reference list. Forward: who cites the seeds (Google Scholar / Scopus citation counts). Iterate until new searches stop turning up unseen important work (saturation).
3. Keyword + JEL-code sweep. Search EconLit / RePEc / NBER / SSRN by topic keywords and by the relevant JEL classification codes (see jel-classification-system) to catch work indexed under adjacent labels.
4. Working papers + adjacent fields. A current survey must include recent working papers (the frontier) and the bordering literatures the field draws on, or referees will flag staleness and siloing.
5. Saturation log. Record when each search stops yielding new must-cite work — this is your evidence of comprehensiveness for jel-comprehensiveness-and-balance.

From reading to synthesis (not summary)

Summarizing is restating each paper; synthesizing is making the papers talk to each other. Maintain an evidence matrix as you read:

Column	What to capture
Study	author–year, the result you will cite it for
Question/estimand	exactly what it measures (so non-comparable studies are not pooled)
Method/data	design and sample (so you can weight credibility)
Finding	direction + magnitude (for who-found-what tables)
Quality/credibility	identification strength, sample, robustness — your appraisal, since JEL does not run new estimates
Tension	which other studies it agrees/conflicts with, and why

This matrix is the raw material for the organizing framework, the summary tables, and the even-handed treatment of controversies. Crucially, you appraise primary studies (you are the field's referee-of-record); you do not re-estimate them.

Checklist

• Seed set drawn from canonical pieces + proposal references
• Forward and backward snowball iterated to saturation
• EconLit / RePEc / NBER / SSRN swept by keyword and JEL code
• Recent working papers and adjacent literatures included (no staleness, no silo)
• Saturation log records where searches stopped yielding new must-cites
• Evidence matrix captures estimand + method + finding + your credibility appraisal + tensions
• Non-comparable studies are flagged as such (not pooled into a false consensus)
• No major author/school whose omission a referee could name

Anti-patterns

• Citing from memory or from a personal reading list (predictable coverage gaps)
• Summarizing paper-by-paper instead of synthesizing across papers
• Pooling studies that estimate different objects into one "the literature finds…" claim
• Ignoring working papers (looks stale) or ignoring adjacent fields (looks siloed)
• Re-running or "correcting" primary studies — a JEL survey appraises, it does not re-estimate
• Leaning on review databases without the JEL-code sweep that catches adjacently-indexed work

Output format

【Seed set】<canonical + proposal references>
【Snowball status】backward/forward iterated to saturation? Y/N
【Databases swept】EconLit / RePEc / NBER / SSRN — by keyword + JEL code? Y/N
【Frontier + adjacency】recent WPs and bordering literatures included? Y/N
【Saturation evidence】<where searches stopped yielding new must-cites>
【Evidence matrix】rows ready with estimand / method / finding / appraisal / tension? Y/N
【Coverage risks】<any author/school an omission referee could name>
【Next step】→ jel-organizing-framework (impose the analytical spine on the matrix)