From wber-skills
Evaluates whether a development-economics question fits The World Bank Economic Review and helps frame it for both credible empirics and policy relevance.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/wber-skills:wber-topic-selectionThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You have a developing-country result but are unsure it is "general" enough for WBER
WBER's stated mission is to publish innovative theoretical and empirical research that identifies, analyzes, measures, and evaluates the macro- and micro-economic forces that promote or impede economic development. The selection test is a logical AND, not an OR:
A paper that is methodologically immaculate but has no developing-country policy stake reads as "send to a general field journal." A paper with a vivid policy story but a fragile design reads as "send to World Development or a report series." WBER wants both.
| Your paper looks like... | WBER fit | Move |
|---|---|---|
| Single RCT/evaluation of one program in one place | Conditional | Reframe around the mechanism and what it teaches development policy broadly; argue external validity / scale-up |
| Quasi-experiment on a developing-country policy reform | Strong | Foreground the reform as a policy lever; quantify the counterfactual |
| New measurement of poverty/inequality/welfare in LDCs | Strong | Lead with what the measure changes for targeting/policy; nail data construction |
| Methods paper / new estimator | Weak | Send to an econometrics or methods outlet unless the application is the development contribution |
| Survey / literature overview / framework piece | Wrong outlet | Route to the World Bank Research Observer (surveys, not refereed in the WBER sense) |
| Rich-country labor/finance study | Wrong outlet | Send to a general field journal; WBER is developing-country focused |
WBER runs two tracks, and the topic should pick the track:
Choosing the wrong track is a real fit error: a thin paper stretched to full length reads as padded; a rich paper compressed to short format reads as underdeveloped.
A team has an RCT of an agricultural-extension app in one region showing a 6% yield gain. As a topic it is a "project report." The WBER reframe asks: what force does this speak to? They reposition it as evidence on information frictions in technology adoption — a central development margin — and ask the policy question "should governments subsidize digital vs. in-person extension?" The data spine (administrative plot records plus the app's usage logs) is named up front, external validity is flagged (one agro-climatic zone), and because the contribution is a single clean result on a timely question, they choose the short-format track. The topic now passes both halves of the bar.
Before investing further, run the question through the screen a WBER editor applies in the first pass:
A question that fails any one of these should be re-scoped or re-homed now, before the design, exhibits, and writing skills are invoked on a paper the editor will return unread.
【Target】The World Bank Economic Review
【Development question】one sentence
【Policy decision informed】who acts differently and how
【Development force / mechanism】the margin the result speaks to
【Data spine】LSMS / DHS / admin / firm / original survey
【Track】full-length / short-format
【Sibling ruled out】why not JDE / World Development / Research Observer
【Next skill】wber-literature-positioning
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin wber-skillsEvaluates manuscript fit for the World Bank Economic Review, covering scope, method bar, house style, and desk-reject risks for development economics papers.
Routes manuscript work for The World Bank Economic Review (WBER) submissions, directing to the appropriate wber-* sub-skill based on current stage or bottleneck.
Helps determine if a development research question fits World Development journal scope or belongs in a sibling journal (JDE, WBER, JDS, EDCC). Tests relevance, audience fit, and methodological pluralism.