Topic Selection (jet-topic-selection)
When to trigger
- Deciding whether a result belongs at JET versus a field or empirical journal
- You have data, an experiment, or a computation and want to know if it can go to JET
- Choosing which of several results to lead with
The JET scope gate
JET publishes across mechanism design, information economics, decision theory, game theory,
matching, market design, political economy, and finance / macroeconomic / monetary theory —
broad general theory in one venue, not a subfield niche. The single deciding criterion is a
rigorous, original theoretical contribution. Ask three questions:
- Is the core deliverable a theorem (or a genuinely new model/characterization)? If the headline
is a regression coefficient or a calibration with no new theoretical result, JET is off-fit —
regardless of how clean the empirics are.
- Is it original and non-trivial? A restatement of a known result, or a special case of an existing
theorem, will not clear the desk screen (see jet-review-process).
- If there is empirical / experimental / quantitative / computational content, is it firmly grounded
in theory? JET admits such work only as the application or test of a theoretical contribution
that is itself the paper's point — not as a stand-alone empirical paper.
Decision rule
- Lead with the theory. State the result you would put in the abstract as a proposition/theorem.
If you cannot, the project is not yet a JET paper.
- Generality vs. tractability. A clean result under transparent assumptions usually beats a more
general result that no referee can verify (see jet-identification-strategy).
- Subfield routing. Name the area early — submissions are routed to the matching editor.
Deliverable-type scope table
| Your core deliverable |
JET verdict |
If off-fit, reroute |
| New characterization / existence / impossibility theorem in a core area |
in scope — lead with it |
— |
| Counterexample overturning a folk presumption |
in scope when the presumption matters to a literature |
frame the economics of why the presumption mattered |
| New solution concept or preference axiomatization |
in scope; expect heavy scrutiny of the axioms' behavioral content |
— |
| Asset-pricing result whose substance is stochastic-analysis machinery (semimartingales, no-arbitrage functional analysis) |
usually a better fit at a mathematical-finance venue; JET wants the economics of the theorem |
finance theory belongs at JET when incentives, information, or equilibrium do the work |
| Structural estimation / calibration exercise |
off-fit regardless of model quality |
empirical or quantitative-macro journals |
| Market-design algorithm with performance proofs |
in scope when the theorem is the contribution |
otherwise an OR/CS venue |
Vignette: a matching project at the gate
A team holds (i) a stability-existence theorem for matching with regional constraints, (ii)
simulations on synthetic data, and (iii) a policy application. Running the three questions:
- Q1: yes — the existence theorem is the deliverable; the simulations and policy story are not.
- Q2: check against the closest constrained-matching theorem before claiming novelty; if the
result is a special case of a published substitutes condition, it will not clear the screen.
- Q3: the simulations only exhibit the constrained core's shape, so they compress into one
numbered Example with a script (jet-data-analysis).
Verdict: JET-ready — lead with the theorem, demote the policy narrative to one motivation
paragraph, and name "matching / market design" for editor routing.
Lead-result selection when you have several
- Prefer the result whose assumptions are cleanest to state, even if a sibling result is
technically harder — the lead theorem is what the desk screen reads.
- A characterization beats an existence result as the headline when both are proved; existence can
follow as a corollary section.
- Never lead with the comparative static if the underlying equilibrium object is itself new.
Anti-patterns
- An applied-micro or finance paper with a token model bolted on
- A computational exercise with no characterization result behind it
- A marginal generalization of a published theorem framed as new
Output format
【Core result】<the theorem/characterization in one sentence>
【Scope fit】in-scope theory area: <area> | off-fit: <why>
【Empirical/computational content】none | grounded-in-theory | stand-alone (off-fit)
【Verdict】JET-ready / reframe / send elsewhere → jet-literature-positioning
1---2name: jet-topic-selection3description: Use when testing whether a project clears the Journal of Economic Theory (JET) scope gate — a rigorous, original theoretical contribution in a core theory area, with empirical/computational work only when firmly grounded in theory.4---56# Topic Selection (jet-topic-selection)78## When to trigger910- Deciding whether a result belongs at JET versus a field or empirical journal11- You have data, an experiment, or a computation and want to know if it can go to JET12- Choosing which of several results to lead with1314## The JET scope gate1516JET publishes across **mechanism design, information economics, decision theory, game theory,17matching, market design, political economy, and finance / macroeconomic / monetary theory** —18broad **general theory** in one venue, not a subfield niche. The single deciding criterion is a19**rigorous, original theoretical contribution**. Ask three questions:20211. **Is the core deliverable a theorem (or a genuinely new model/characterization)?** If the headline22 is a regression coefficient or a calibration with no new theoretical result, JET is off-fit —23 regardless of how clean the empirics are.242. **Is it original and non-trivial?** A restatement of a known result, or a special case of an existing25 theorem, will not clear the desk screen (see jet-review-process).263. **If there is empirical / experimental / quantitative / computational content, is it *firmly grounded27 in theory*?** JET admits such work **only** as the application or test of a theoretical contribution28 that is itself the paper's point — not as a stand-alone empirical paper.2930## Decision rule3132- **Lead with the theory.** State the result you would put in the abstract as a proposition/theorem.33 If you cannot, the project is not yet a JET paper.34- **Generality vs. tractability.** A clean result under transparent assumptions usually beats a more35 general result that no referee can verify (see jet-identification-strategy).36- **Subfield routing.** Name the area early — submissions are routed to the matching editor.3738## Deliverable-type scope table3940| Your core deliverable | JET verdict | If off-fit, reroute |41|---|---|---|42| New characterization / existence / impossibility theorem in a core area | in scope — lead with it | — |43| Counterexample overturning a folk presumption | in scope when the presumption matters to a literature | frame the economics of why the presumption mattered |44| New solution concept or preference axiomatization | in scope; expect heavy scrutiny of the axioms' behavioral content | — |45| Asset-pricing result whose substance is stochastic-analysis machinery (semimartingales, no-arbitrage functional analysis) | usually a better fit at a mathematical-finance venue; JET wants the economics of the theorem | finance theory belongs at JET when incentives, information, or equilibrium do the work |46| Structural estimation / calibration exercise | off-fit regardless of model quality | empirical or quantitative-macro journals |47| Market-design algorithm with performance proofs | in scope when the theorem is the contribution | otherwise an OR/CS venue |4849## Vignette: a matching project at the gate5051A team holds (i) a stability-existence theorem for matching with regional constraints, (ii)52simulations on synthetic data, and (iii) a policy application. Running the three questions:5354- **Q1:** yes — the existence theorem is the deliverable; the simulations and policy story are not.55- **Q2:** check against the closest constrained-matching theorem before claiming novelty; if the56 result is a special case of a published substitutes condition, it will not clear the screen.57- **Q3:** the simulations only exhibit the constrained core's shape, so they compress into one58 numbered Example with a script (jet-data-analysis).5960Verdict: JET-ready — lead with the theorem, demote the policy narrative to one motivation61paragraph, and name "matching / market design" for editor routing.6263## Lead-result selection when you have several6465- Prefer the result whose **assumptions are cleanest to state**, even if a sibling result is66 technically harder — the lead theorem is what the desk screen reads.67- A characterization beats an existence result as the headline when both are proved; existence can68 follow as a corollary section.69- Never lead with the comparative static if the underlying equilibrium object is itself new.7071## Anti-patterns7273- An applied-micro or finance paper with a token model bolted on74- A computational exercise with no characterization result behind it75- A marginal generalization of a published theorem framed as new7677## Output format7879```80【Core result】<the theorem/characterization in one sentence>81【Scope fit】in-scope theory area: <area> | off-fit: <why>82【Empirical/computational content】none | grounded-in-theory | stand-alone (off-fit)83【Verdict】JET-ready / reframe / send elsewhere → jet-literature-positioning84```
brycewang-stanford