---

name: aeri-literature-positioning description: Use when positioning the contribution of an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript against the closest published work in one or two tight paragraphs. Stakes the gap concisely; it does not write the full literature review (there is no room for one).

Literature Positioning — Compressed (aeri-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• The contribution relative to the nearest paper is fuzzy or oversold
• A draft contains a multi-page literature review that the format cannot afford
• A referee might say "this is already known" or "this is a known method applied"
• You need to show the single insight is new without spending the word budget

The short-format positioning problem

AER: Insights gives you no room for a survey. Positioning must be done in one or two paragraphs that do exactly one job: pin the single closest prior result and state precisely what your one insight adds, corrects, or overturns. Because the whole paper is one idea, the literature task is narrow — locate that idea on the frontier, not map the whole field. The word budget is shared with everything else (≤7,000 words minus exhibits), so every citation must earn its place.

How to position in two paragraphs

1. Name the closest paper(s), not a field. Identify the one or two papers a referee will immediately think of. Engage them directly: what did they establish, and what did they leave open or get wrong that your insight resolves?
2. State the delta as a single clause. "We show X, where the closest prior work showed only Y / assumed Z / left W unresolved." The delta must match the one-sentence insight from aeri-topic-selection.
3. Defend novelty without inflation. AER: Insights referees punish both "this is already known" and overclaiming. Calibrate: claim exactly the marginal contribution, no more.
4. Push the broad literature to the appendix or footnotes. Tangential citations and related-strands discussion go to a footnote or the Supplemental Appendix, never an in-text section.

Decision table: what kind of gap is it?

| Gap type | One-line framing | Watch-out | |----------|------------------|-----------| | New result on an open question | "It was unknown whether …; we show …" | be sure it is genuinely open, not just unaddressed-by-you | | Overturning a believed result | "Prior work concluded X; with [better design/data] we find not-X" | engage the prior paper's design fairly | | Sharpening / separating channels | "Prior work left A and B bundled together; we isolate ..." | show the separation is the contribution | | Method that changes the answer | "Applying [method] to [setting] reverses the standard conclusion" | the payoff, not the method, is the contribution |

Where positioning lives in the short paper

In a long paper the literature has its own section; in AER: Insights it should live inside the introduction — typically the second and third sentences after the headline result (aeri-writing-style). The reader meets the result, then immediately learns what was believed before and what your one insight changes. A standalone "Related Literature" section is a smell that the paper is too long or trying to be an AER paper.

The general-interest test for citations

Because AER: Insights is general-interest, the closest paper you confront should be one a broad audience recognizes, not only the three specialists in your subfield. If the only papers you can position against are field-internal, reconsider whether the venue is AER: Insights or an AEJ field journal (aeri-topic-selection). Position against the most visible prior claim your result touches; cite the field-internal antecedents in a footnote.

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A fictional paper finds that revealing posted wages closes part of the gender application gap. A weak positioning cites "a large literature on gender gaps" and a dozen papers. A strong AER: Insights positioning is two sentences: "The application gap is widely attributed to preferences or confidence (closest paper: X); we show a simple information change moves it substantially, implying the gap is partly an information friction." One named antecedent, one delta clause, no survey.

Checklist

• [ ] The single closest prior result is named and engaged directly
• [ ] The contribution is stated as one delta clause matching the headline insight
• [ ] Novelty is calibrated — neither "already known" nor overclaimed
• [ ] Positioning fits in one or two paragraphs, not a section
• [ ] Broader / tangential literature is in footnotes or the appendix
• [ ] No claim that the insight cannot defend in the short paper itself

Anti-patterns

• A multi-page "Related Literature" section the word cap cannot afford
• Citing a field instead of confronting the one paper closest to yours
• Overclaiming ("first to …") when a near-identical result exists
• Hedged positioning that leaves the referee unsure what is new
• Spending words on strands the single insight does not touch

Output format

【Closest prior work】<1–2 papers> — what they established / left open
【Delta clause】"We show ..., where prior work only ... / assumed ... / left ... unresolved"
【Novelty calibration】exact marginal contribution (no over/underclaim)
【Where the rest goes】footnotes / Supplemental Appendix
【Next step】aeri-identification (or aeri-theory-model for a theory paper)