JFQA Topic Selection (jfqa-topic-selection)
Use this skill to test whether a finance question belongs in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA) before you build the paper and pay the $350 submission fee (only $275 refundable if it is not sent to a reviewer).
What JFQA publishes
JFQA covers theoretical and empirical research in financial economics, with a quantitative core:
- Corporate finance — capital structure, payout, governance, M&A, investment.
- Investments / asset pricing — cross-section of returns, factors, anomalies, portfolio choice.
- Capital and security markets — market microstructure, liquidity, price discovery.
- Financial institutions — banks, intermediaries, regulation.
- Quantitative methods relevant to finance.
The name is load-bearing: the journal rewards quantitative analysis — disciplined data, models, and inference — over purely descriptive or institutional essays.
Fit checklist
Anti-patterns
- A descriptive industry study with no quantitative test or model.
- A method paper with no genuine finance application (belongs in an econometrics outlet).
- An incremental anomaly with no economic mechanism or out-of-sample discipline.
- Excessive length that invites desk rejection (JFQA discourages over-long papers).
Fit-scoring rubric (score before you build)
| Dimension |
0 points |
1 point |
2 points |
| Finance object |
none identifiable |
adjacent (accounting/macro proxy) |
a return, spread, ratio, or institution JFQA readers own |
| Quantitative core |
narrative only |
descriptive statistics |
estimation or a model with testable implications |
| Identification feasibility |
pure correlation |
plausible design, untested |
a named shock, threshold, or restriction |
| Data archivability |
data cannot be shared or simulated |
pseudo data possible with effort |
raw or pseudo data straightforward |
| Novelty at < 9% selectivity |
replication-grade |
extends a known result |
changes a number or conclusion the field uses |
| Length discipline |
sprawling multi-question paper |
trimmable |
one question, one design |
Read the total: 10-12, build for JFQA; 7-9, repair the weakest dimension before writing; 6 or below, retarget the venue or redesign the project.
Two candidate questions scored (illustrative)
- Candidate A — "Does option-implied information subsume post-earnings-announcement drift?" Finance object 2, quantitative core 2 (options plus stock-return data), identification 1 (predictive design with multiple-testing exposure), archivability 2 (pseudo data is routine), novelty 1, length 2 → 10. Verdict: build it, but write the multiple-testing defense into the design before the first regression.
- Candidate B — "How do fintech lenders talk about their culture?" Scores roughly 3: no finance quantity is measured and nothing is estimated. Verdict: either redesign around measurable lending outcomes (rates, default, approval gaps) or send the descriptive version to a field outlet.
Borderline calls from adjacent fields
- Accounting-flavored questions qualify when the outcome is a finance quantity (cost of capital, returns, spreads) rather than reporting quality for its own sake.
- A pure econometrics advance qualifies only if it changes a finance conclusion in a real application.
- Macro-finance fits when the asset-market or intermediary channel is the object, not the backdrop.
- Household finance fits when portfolio, credit, or pricing behavior is quantified at scale.
Portfolio thinking under the fee structure
- Score every candidate project on the rubric before any is built; the journal's fee-and-refund design effectively prices a failed screen, so weak candidates should die at this stage, not at submission.
- A 7-9 project with a repairable dimension (usually identification or novelty) often beats starting a fresh 10 — the repair plan itself can become the paper's design section.
- Re-score after the first full results pass: projects drift, and a question that scored 11 as proposed can be an 8 as executed.
Output format
【Scope fit】corporate finance / investments / markets / institutions / methods?
【Quantitative core】Y/N — what is measured/estimated
【Selectivity check】is the contribution sharp enough for <9%?
【Next step】jfqa-literature-positioning
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Journal-of-Financial-and-Quantitative-Analysis-Skills/skills/jfqa-topic-selection/SKILL.md
1---2name: jfqa-topic-selection3description: Use when judging whether a research question fits the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA) — empirical and quantitative financial economics (corporate finance, investments, capital and security markets, financial institutions, finance-relevant quantitative methods). Use before investing in a JFQA submission to test scope fit and the quantitative-evidence bar.4---567# JFQA Topic Selection (jfqa-topic-selection)89Use this skill to test whether a finance question belongs in the **Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA)** before you build the paper and pay the **$350** submission fee (only **$275** refundable if it is not sent to a reviewer).1011## What JFQA publishes1213JFQA covers **theoretical and empirical** research in financial economics, with a quantitative core:1415- **Corporate finance** — capital structure, payout, governance, M&A, investment.16- **Investments / asset pricing** — cross-section of returns, factors, anomalies, portfolio choice.17- **Capital and security markets** — market microstructure, liquidity, price discovery.18- **Financial institutions** — banks, intermediaries, regulation.19- **Quantitative methods** relevant to finance.2021The name is load-bearing: the journal rewards **quantitative analysis** — disciplined data, models, and inference — over purely descriptive or institutional essays.2223## Fit checklist2425- [ ] Question sits squarely in financial economics, not adjacent (pure macro, accounting-only, generic econometrics).26- [ ] There is a **quantitative empirical or theoretical** answer — not just a narrative.27- [ ] The data/design can deliver a clean, defensible result (see jfqa-identification-strategy).28- [ ] The contribution is sharp enough to survive a journal that prints **< 9%** of 1,000+ annual submissions.29- [ ] If empirical, the data can be archived (raw or pseudo dataset) under the JFQA Code Sharing Policy.3031## Anti-patterns3233- A descriptive industry study with no quantitative test or model.34- A method paper with no genuine finance application (belongs in an econometrics outlet).35- An incremental anomaly with no economic mechanism or out-of-sample discipline.36- Excessive length that invites desk rejection (JFQA discourages over-long papers).3738## Fit-scoring rubric (score before you build)3940| Dimension | 0 points | 1 point | 2 points |41|---|---|---|---|42| Finance object | none identifiable | adjacent (accounting/macro proxy) | a return, spread, ratio, or institution JFQA readers own |43| Quantitative core | narrative only | descriptive statistics | estimation or a model with testable implications |44| Identification feasibility | pure correlation | plausible design, untested | a named shock, threshold, or restriction |45| Data archivability | data cannot be shared or simulated | pseudo data possible with effort | raw or pseudo data straightforward |46| Novelty at < 9% selectivity | replication-grade | extends a known result | changes a number or conclusion the field uses |47| Length discipline | sprawling multi-question paper | trimmable | one question, one design |4849Read the total: 10-12, build for JFQA; 7-9, repair the weakest dimension before writing; 6 or below, retarget the venue or redesign the project.5051## Two candidate questions scored (illustrative)5253- Candidate A — "Does option-implied information subsume post-earnings-announcement drift?" Finance object 2, quantitative core 2 (options plus stock-return data), identification 1 (predictive design with multiple-testing exposure), archivability 2 (pseudo data is routine), novelty 1, length 2 → 10. Verdict: build it, but write the multiple-testing defense into the design before the first regression.54- Candidate B — "How do fintech lenders talk about their culture?" Scores roughly 3: no finance quantity is measured and nothing is estimated. Verdict: either redesign around measurable lending outcomes (rates, default, approval gaps) or send the descriptive version to a field outlet.5556## Borderline calls from adjacent fields5758- Accounting-flavored questions qualify when the outcome is a finance quantity (cost of capital, returns, spreads) rather than reporting quality for its own sake.59- A pure econometrics advance qualifies only if it changes a finance conclusion in a real application.60- Macro-finance fits when the asset-market or intermediary channel is the object, not the backdrop.61- Household finance fits when portfolio, credit, or pricing behavior is quantified at scale.6263## Portfolio thinking under the fee structure6465- Score every candidate project on the rubric before any is built; the journal's fee-and-refund design effectively prices a failed screen, so weak candidates should die at this stage, not at submission.66- A 7-9 project with a repairable dimension (usually identification or novelty) often beats starting a fresh 10 — the repair plan itself can become the paper's design section.67- Re-score after the first full results pass: projects drift, and a question that scored 11 as proposed can be an 8 as executed.6869## Output format7071```72【Scope fit】corporate finance / investments / markets / institutions / methods?73【Quantitative core】Y/N — what is measured/estimated74【Selectivity check】is the contribution sharp enough for <9%?75【Next step】jfqa-literature-positioning76```7778---7980**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Financial-and-Quantitative-Analysis-Skills/skills/jfqa-topic-selection/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain