---
name: eer-topic-selection
description: Use when deciding whether a question is a fit for the European Economic Review (EER) — general-interest across all of economics — rather than a field journal, JEEA, or The Economic Journal. Diagnoses fit and reframes for breadth; it does not build the identification or the model.
---

# Topic Selection & Fit (eer-topic-selection)

## When to trigger

- You are unsure whether the paper is "EER-shaped" or belongs in a field outlet
- A reviewer/colleague said the question is "too narrow" or "of interest only to specialists"
- You are choosing among EER, JEEA, The Economic Journal, or an Elsevier field journal
- The contribution reads as an incremental field increment, not a broad-interest result

## The EER fit bar

EER is **Elsevier's general-interest European economics journal** (founded 1969), publishing **all fields, theory and empirical**. The defining test is **breadth of interest**: would an economist *outside* your subfield find the question, the answer, or the method worth knowing? EER is not Europe-restricted in topic (the name is institutional), and it is not a methods-first journal — it wants a substantive economic result that travels. Calibrate against the desk-reject filter: editors screen out-of-scope or low-novelty work **before review** (and the submission fee is non-refundable), so the breadth case must be visible on page one.

## Fit decision table

| Signal | Reading | Move |
|--------|---------|------|
| Result changes how non-specialists think about a first-order question | Strong EER fit | proceed to `eer-literature-positioning` |
| Solid identification but narrow policy/sector relevance | Borderline — reframe for breadth or consider a field journal | reframe, then `eer-literature-positioning` |
| Incremental extension of one literature, specialists only | Weak EER fit | broaden the question or target a field outlet |
| Pure theory with a clean, general result | EER fits (theory is in scope) | `eer-theory-model` |
| About Europe but of only local interest | Topic ≠ scope problem | recast around the general economic mechanism |

## EER vs. its siblings (where does this paper go?)

| Outlet | Identity | Pick it when |
|--------|----------|--------------|
| **EER** | Elsevier general-interest, all fields, long-standing | broad-interest result, theory or empirical, no society gate |
| **JEEA** | The EEA's own flagship (Oxford UP) | you want the EEA society flagship; comparably broad, more selective slot |
| **The Economic Journal** | RES flagship (Oxford UP) | RES-oriented general-interest home |
| **Elsevier field journal** (e.g., JME, Labour Economics, JPubE) | field-specialist depth | the contribution is deep but field-internal |

> EER and JEEA overlap heavily in scope; the practical difference is the EEA society identity of JEEA and slot scarcity, not topic. Position on contribution and fit, not prestige labels.

## Reframing a narrow question for EER breadth

1. **Name the general mechanism**, not the local application ("how search frictions blunt pass-through," not "prices in one retail chain").
2. **State the first-order quantity or theoretical object** a generalist cares about.
3. **Show portability** — one sentence on what the result implies beyond your setting.
4. **Lead with the answer**, not the dataset or estimator.

## Checklist

- [ ] One sentence states a question a non-specialist economist would care about
- [ ] The contribution is an *answer/mechanism*, not a dataset or a method tweak
- [ ] Breadth is visible in the first paragraph (survives the desk-reject screen)
- [ ] Sibling check done: EER vs. JEEA / EJ / field journal, decided on fit not prestige
- [ ] If theory, the result is general (not a single worked example)
- [ ] "European" framing, if any, is recast as a general economic mechanism

## Anti-patterns

- Pitching a clean-but-narrow field increment as if breadth were obvious
- Leading with the data source or the estimator instead of the economic question
- Assuming EER means "European topics only" and over-localizing the framing
- Choosing EER purely on impact factor rather than fit and breadth
- Ignoring the desk-reject + non-refundable-fee filter when scope is marginal

## Output format

```
【EER fit】strong / borderline / weak
【General-interest question】one sentence (non-specialist-legible)
【Contribution type】empirical answer / mechanism / theory result
【Breadth case】why a non-specialist cares + portability sentence
【Sibling decision】EER vs JEEA / EJ / field journal — and why
【Next step】eer-literature-positioning (or eer-theory-model if pure theory)
```