Literature Positioning (joe-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• A referee could ask "how is this different from [known estimator/test]?" and you lack a crisp answer
• The related-work section lists papers but never states the precise gap
• You cannot name the single closest prior method and the exact dimension on which you improve
• Reviewers might think the result is a special case of something already published

Why positioning is decisive at JoE

The Journal of Econometrics judges a paper first on its methodological novelty and rigor. Editors screen submissions before sending suitable papers to a minimum of two independent referees (single-anonymized review), and these referees are typically specialists who know the nearest competing methods cold. A manuscript that does not locate itself precisely against the frontier reads as either redundant or unaware — both are desk- or referee-level rejections. Positioning is not a literature dump; it is an argument that a specific gap exists and that you close it.

Positioning moves specific to econometric methodology

State the contribution along the axes referees actually use:

1. Assumptions — do you achieve the result under weaker or more primitive conditions (e.g., dropping homoskedasticity, allowing dependence, weak identification, fewer moment conditions)?
2. Generality — does the method cover a broader class of models, DGPs, or data structures (panel, time series, network, high-dimensional)?
3. Efficiency / rate — better asymptotic variance, faster convergence rate, semiparametric efficiency, or oracle property?
4. Inference validity — correct size where existing tests over/under-reject; uniform validity; robustness to nuisance parameters or tuning choices.
5. Computation — feasible where prior methods are intractable, with the same statistical guarantees.

Then tie each claimed gap to a citation and, ideally, to a Monte Carlo comparison and a theorem.

Building the positioning

• Identify the single nearest method and write one sentence: "Unlike X (Author, year), which assumes/achieves ___, we ___."
• Map the lineage: the classical result, the modern refinements, and where you sit.
• Use Elsevier reference style (numbered or author-year, CSL-compatible); cite datasets with the [dataset] tag where relevant.
• Pre-empt the "special case" objection: show explicitly that prior results are nested or that your conditions are not implied by theirs.

Anti-patterns

• A related-work paragraph that summarizes papers but never states your delta
• Claiming "novel" against a strawman while ignoring the closest competitor
• Comparing only on intuition with no Monte Carlo or analytic comparison
• Over-broad claims ("first to...") that a referee can falsify with one citation

Positioning pass for Journal of Econometrics

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the estimand or theorem, assumptions, asymptotic/simulation evidence, and applied relevance; then test whether the manuscript addresses econometrics reviewers who expect methodological novelty, assumptions, simulation or empirical illustration, and reproducibility.

• Primary move: Map incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, this manuscript's delta, and the sibling-venue omission a referee might notice.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against Econometric Theory for proof-first work, JBES for applied statistical methods, Quantitative Economics for economics-theory methods; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Nearest method】Author (year): assumes/achieves ___
【Our delta】weaker assumptions / generality / efficiency / inference / computation
【One-sentence positioning】"Unlike X, we ___."
【Lineage】classical → refinement → this paper
【Evidence of the gap】theorem ref + Monte Carlo comparison
【Next step】joe-identification-strategy