Literature Positioning (revacc-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The intro reads as gap-spotting ("no one has studied X") rather than joining a conversation
- You cannot name the three or four papers your result directly speaks to or overturns
- A referee asks "what do we learn beyond [prior paper]?" or "how is this not [classic result]?"
- The paper straddles disclosure, earnings, and valuation literatures without committing to one
- You are unsure whether the natural cite set is the RAST/analytical-accounting frontier or the empirical-archival frontier
Position into a conversation, not a gap
RAST referees punish gap-spotting. The job is to identify the specific accounting conversation your paper joins, name the two or three works that define its current frontier, and state the marginal move — a new friction, a cleaner setting, a sharper construct, a model that rationalizes a puzzle, or a boundary the prior work did not reach. Because RAST runs both archival and analytical lanes, your positioning must place you on the right frontier and, where relevant, bridge the two: an empirical paper that tests a disclosure-theory prediction, or a model that explains an archival regularity, lands especially well at RAST.
Map your cite set onto the live debates RAST publishes in:
- Disclosure: voluntary vs. mandatory disclosure, disclosure quality and granularity, proprietary costs, real effects of disclosure.
- Earnings quality: earnings management, accruals quality, smoothing, the contracting vs. capital-market motives.
- Valuation / capital markets: value-relevance, information content of earnings, post-earnings-announcement drift, cost of capital effects.
- Analysts / forecasting: forecast accuracy and bias, the information environment, analyst incentives.
- Audit & tax: audit quality and demand, tax avoidance and reporting, regulatory and enforcement consequences.
Stake the contribution against the siblings
State explicitly why the paper is RAST rather than a sibling, because referees and the editor will:
| Journal |
Center of gravity |
When it, not RAST, is the home |
| TAR (AAA) |
Contribution-to-the-literature bar; method-agnostic; archival-dominated |
The contribution is broad-significance accounting with no special modeling angle |
| JAR (Chicago Booth) |
Identification-first; posts a data-and-code package; Registered Reports |
The paper lives or dies on a sharp causal design and reproducibility is the headline |
| JAE (Elsevier) |
Economics-of-accounting; contracting and capital markets; JAE data archive |
A contracting/positive-accounting question in the JAE house style |
| CAR (CPA Canada) |
Broad, methodologically catholic accounting |
A solid but not frontier-defining accounting study |
RAST's edge: it welcomes analytical modeling on equal footing and rewards papers that connect a model to data — use that to justify the venue.
Write the positioning paragraph
- Name the conversation in one clause; cite its two or three frontier works.
- State the marginal move in one sentence (new friction / setting / construct / model / boundary).
- Say what changes if you are right — for theory and for empirics where you can.
- Pre-empt the obvious "this is just [prior paper]" with the precise difference.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Gap-spotting: "the literature is silent on X" instead of joining a debate.
- Citation dumping: a paragraph of cites with no statement of the marginal move.
- Sibling blindness: never explaining why RAST and not the more obvious AAA/Chicago/Elsevier outlet.
- One-lane tunnel vision: ignoring the analytical (or empirical) frontier the paper actually touches.
- Inventing exemplars: citing papers you have not verified exist in the archive.
Output format
【Conversation】the specific accounting debate joined
【Frontier works】2–3 real, verified cites
【Marginal move】new friction / setting / construct / model / boundary
【Archival↔analytical bridge】present? how exploited
【Why RAST】vs TAR / JAR / JAE / CAR — one honest sentence
【Nearest rival】named + precise difference
【Source status】citations verified / 待核实
【Next skill】revacc-methods (then revacc-contribution-framing)
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Review-of-Accounting-Studies-Skills/skills/revacc-literature-positioning/SKILL.md
1---2name: revacc-literature-positioning3description: Use when the contribution relative to the accounting frontier and the sibling journals is fuzzy for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — joining the right disclosure/earnings/valuation conversation and stating the marginal contribution. Positions the paper; it does not sharpen the one-sentence claim (revacc-contribution-framing) or build the mechanism (revacc-theory-development).4---5
6
7# Literature Positioning (revacc-literature-positioning)
8
9## When to trigger
10
11- The intro reads as gap-spotting ("no one has studied X") rather than joining a conversation
12- You cannot name the three or four papers your result directly speaks to or overturns
13- A referee asks "what do we learn beyond [prior paper]?" or "how is this not [classic result]?"
14- The paper straddles disclosure, earnings, and valuation literatures without committing to one
15- You are unsure whether the natural cite set is the RAST/analytical-accounting frontier or the empirical-archival frontier
16
17## Position into a conversation, not a gap
18
19RAST referees punish gap-spotting. The job is to identify the **specific accounting conversation** your paper joins, name the two or three works that define its current frontier, and state the **marginal move** — a new friction, a cleaner setting, a sharper construct, a model that rationalizes a puzzle, or a boundary the prior work did not reach. Because RAST runs both archival and analytical lanes, your positioning must place you on the right frontier and, where relevant, **bridge the two**: an empirical paper that tests a disclosure-theory prediction, or a model that explains an archival regularity, lands especially well at RAST.
20
21Map your cite set onto the live debates RAST publishes in:
22
23- **Disclosure:** voluntary vs. mandatory disclosure, disclosure quality and granularity, proprietary costs, real effects of disclosure.
24- **Earnings quality:** earnings management, accruals quality, smoothing, the contracting vs. capital-market motives.
25- **Valuation / capital markets:** value-relevance, information content of earnings, post-earnings-announcement drift, cost of capital effects.
26- **Analysts / forecasting:** forecast accuracy and bias, the information environment, analyst incentives.
27- **Audit & tax:** audit quality and demand, tax avoidance and reporting, regulatory and enforcement consequences.
28
29## Stake the contribution against the siblings
30
31State explicitly why the paper is RAST rather than a sibling, because referees and the editor will:
32
33| Journal | Center of gravity | When it, not RAST, is the home |
34|---------|-------------------|--------------------------------|
35| **TAR** (AAA) | Contribution-to-the-literature bar; method-agnostic; archival-dominated | The contribution is broad-significance accounting with no special modeling angle |
36| **JAR** (Chicago Booth) | Identification-first; posts a data-and-code package; Registered Reports | The paper lives or dies on a sharp causal design and reproducibility is the headline |
37| **JAE** (Elsevier) | Economics-of-accounting; contracting and capital markets; JAE data archive | A contracting/positive-accounting question in the JAE house style |
38| **CAR** (CPA Canada) | Broad, methodologically catholic accounting | A solid but not frontier-defining accounting study |
39
40RAST's edge: it welcomes **analytical modeling on equal footing** and rewards papers that connect a model to data — use that to justify the venue.
41
42## Write the positioning paragraph
43
441. Name the conversation in one clause; cite its two or three frontier works.
452. State the marginal move in one sentence (new friction / setting / construct / model / boundary).
463. Say what changes if you are right — for theory *and* for empirics where you can.
474. Pre-empt the obvious "this is just [prior paper]" with the precise difference.
48
49## Checklist
50
51- [ ] The specific accounting conversation is named, not a generic gap
52- [ ] Two or three frontier works are cited and the marginal move over them is explicit
53- [ ] The archival/analytical bridge is exploited if the paper supports it
54- [ ] The "why RAST not TAR/JAR/JAE/CAR" sentence is present and honest
55- [ ] The nearest rival paper is named and distinguished precisely
56- [ ] Citations are real and verifiable; none fabricated (mark 待核实 if unsure)
57
58## Anti-patterns
59
60- **Gap-spotting:** "the literature is silent on X" instead of joining a debate.
61- **Citation dumping:** a paragraph of cites with no statement of the marginal move.
62- **Sibling blindness:** never explaining why RAST and not the more obvious AAA/Chicago/Elsevier outlet.
63- **One-lane tunnel vision:** ignoring the analytical (or empirical) frontier the paper actually touches.
64- **Inventing exemplars:** citing papers you have not verified exist in the archive.
65
66## Output format
67
68```text
69【Conversation】the specific accounting debate joined
70【Frontier works】2–3 real, verified cites
71【Marginal move】new friction / setting / construct / model / boundary
72【Archival↔analytical bridge】present? how exploited
73【Why RAST】vs TAR / JAR / JAE / CAR — one honest sentence
74【Nearest rival】named + precise difference
75【Source status】citations verified / 待核实
76【Next skill】revacc-methods (then revacc-contribution-framing)
77```
78
79---
80
81**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Review-of-Accounting-Studies-Skills/skills/revacc-literature-positioning/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain