Rfs Literature Positioning

Literature Positioning (rfs-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• The related-work section is a list ("X did A, Y did B") with no synthesis
• You cannot state your contribution as a single crisp delta
• A reader asks "how is this different from [recent RFS/JF/JFE paper]?"
• The novelty claim from rfs-topic-selection needs to be defended against the literature

How RFS reviewers read positioning

RFS referees and editors are typically the authors of the papers you cite. The handling editor pool is concrete — Executive Editor Tarun Ramadorai plus editors such as Viral Acharya, Xavier Giroud, Andrey Malenko, Anna Pavlova, Clemens Sialm, David Sraer, and Jessica Wachter — so the person screening an intermediation, household-finance, or asset-pricing paper may well be a primary author in that literature. Positioning is judged on whether you (1) know the current frontier, (2) cite the right primary sources rather than secondary surveys, and (3) state a delta that is real and defensible — not rhetorical. When you build on an RFS-defining result (e.g., Brunnermeier–Pedersen 2009 on the liquidity-funding spiral, RFS 22(6)), cite the RFS original, not a later survey that paraphrases it.

The contribution must clear two bars simultaneously:

• Against the literature — what do we now know that we did not before?
• Against the closest 2–3 papers — what specifically do you do that they could not?

Positioning structure

Organize related work by the question, not chronologically:

1. The anchor literatures — name the 2–4 strands you sit at the intersection of (e.g., intermediary asset pricing × household finance). Cite the canonical theory and the most-cited recent empirics.
2. The frontier — the 3–5 most recent, most relevant papers (last ~3 years). Show you know what is in the pipeline.
3. The wedge — one paragraph that names the closest paper(s) and states the precise gap: data they lacked, identification they could not achieve, mechanism they could not test, or theory they did not have.
4. Your delta — one or two sentences, falsifiable: "We are the first to [X], which lets us [Y]."

Delta types that work at RFS

Citing across the top-3 and field journals

• Cite the primary RFS/JF/JFE source for each claim, not a later survey that summarizes it.
• When a result first appeared in a field journal but the framing is now at the top-3, cite both.
• For theory anchors, cite the foundational paper even if decades old — referees expect it.
• Distinguish "first to document" from "first to explain" — over-claiming either is easily disproven.

Checklist

• Related work is organized by question/theme, not by author or date
• The 2–3 closest papers are named explicitly and the delta vs. each is stated
• Recent (last ~3 years) RFS/JF/JFE work is cited — not just classics
• Canonical theory references for each anchor literature are present
• The delta is falsifiable, not "we add to the literature on X"
• You have not overstated novelty in a way a referee can disprove with one cite
• Cross-checked your closest cites against the likely RFS handling-editor's own work (they may referee it)

Anti-patterns

• A laundry-list literature review with no synthesis or wedge.
• Citing surveys/handbooks instead of the primary papers a referee wrote.
• Missing an obvious close competitor — reads as either ignorance or evasion.
• A delta phrased as "to the best of our knowledge, we are the first" with no defense.
• Positioning against field journals when the real competitors are at RFS/JF/JFE.

Output format

【Anchor literatures】[strand 1] × [strand 2] (+ canonical theory cites)
【Frontier papers】[3–5 recent JF/JFE/RFS papers]
【Closest competitors】[paper] → our delta vs. each
【One-sentence delta】"We are the first to ... which lets us ..."
【Open risk】a competitor a referee might raise
【Next step】rfs-identification

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Review-of-Financial-Studies-Skills/skills/rfs-literature-positioning/SKILL.md