Skills Soft Skills Staking Your Contribution in Finance Literature

Staking Your Contribution in Finance Literature

v20260724
rof-literature-positioning
This guide teaches how to transition from a general literature survey to a precise, high-impact staking of position, particularly for top-tier finance journals like RoF. It emphasizes identifying the 3-6 closest frontier papers, clearly articulating the 'delta' (what your paper adds), and bridging the gap between empirical evidence and theoretical mechanisms. Mastery of this skill is crucial for surviving rigorous academic peer review.
Get Skill
71 downloads
Overview

Literature Positioning (rof-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

  • The related-work section reads as a survey, not a staking of position
  • You are unsure you have found the closest prior finance papers
  • A referee could say "this is already in [paper X]"
  • Citations skew to one's own subfield and miss the general-finance frame

The RoF citation norm (strict)

RoF enforces a strong author-responsibility citation norm: authors must search for and cite relevant work, and not being aware of a paper that should reasonably have been found is not a valid defense — omissions can be sanctioned. Combined with the top-three-finance-journal standard, positioning must be (a) complete with respect to the closest work and (b) framed for a general finance audience. Because RoF spans empirical and theoretical finance, place the paper relative to both the evidence and the mechanism it speaks to.

Positioning moves

  1. Map the frontier — identify the 3–6 closest papers (often top-three finance) and state, for each, what they do and where they stop.
  2. Stake the delta — one clause per close paper: "X shows A; we show B." No vague "we complement."
  3. Bridge empirical and theory — if empirical, cite the theory you test or discipline; if theory, cite the empirical regularity you rationalize.
  4. Exhaustive search — run keyword, citation-chain, and recent-working-paper searches; assume a referee owns the paper you missed.
  5. No standalone survey — weave positioning into the introduction and a short related-work paragraph; the 60-page cap (incl. bibliography) penalizes bloat.

Search protocol sized to the sanction norm

Because an omission at RoF can be sanctioned, the search must be documented, not vibes:

  1. Keyword pass over the top-three finance journals plus RoF itself, going back roughly a decade.
  2. Citation chain: forward and backward from the three closest papers (cited-by trails both ways).
  3. Working-paper sweep: SSRN FEN, NBER, CEPR Discussion Papers, and the last three EFA annual-meeting programs — RoF's own community circulates the closest competitors there before they hit journals.
  4. European-antecedent check: if the paper runs on Datastream, Bankscope/Orbis, or ECB data, search for the country-specific predecessors a European Associate Editor will know by heart.
  5. Keep a query log with dates; if a referee later names a missed paper, the log demonstrates good-faith search rather than negligence.

Micro-example — from survey paragraph to staked position

Before: "A large literature studies bank competition and stability [eight citations]." After: "Keeley (1990) ties charter value to risk-taking; Boyd and De Nicolò (2005) reverse the sign theoretically; using Bankscope data on 1,800 European banks we show both forces operate, with competition-fragility dominating only above a market-share threshold — the margin neither paper can identify." One clause per pole of the debate, then the delta. (Illustrative numbers; the cited debate is real and well known.)

Bibliography economics under the page ceiling

  • Every reference must be load-bearing: it either anchors a delta, supplies a method, or documents a fact you use. Courtesy citations cost cap pages at RoF without buying goodwill.
  • Cite the published version once a working paper appears in print, in Chicago style throughout.
  • For a general-interest venue spanning empirical and theoretical finance, include at least one anchor from each side when the paper bridges them — a theory-only or evidence-only reference list signals field-journal framing.
  • When two literatures could claim the paper, position in the one where the contribution is largest and acknowledge the other in a single sentence.

Anti-patterns

  • A two-page literature review that never says what this paper adds.
  • Citing only your own subfield and missing the general-finance reference everyone knows.
  • Omitting a close paper and hoping the referee misses it — RoF treats this as your fault and may sanction it.
  • Padding the bibliography (it counts against the 60-page cap) instead of citing precisely.

Output format

【Closest papers】[3-6], venue + where each stops
【Delta per paper】X→A, we→B
【Empirical↔theory bridge】mechanism/evidence link
【Search done】keywords / citation-chain / WP scan [Y/N]
【Omission risk】close paper not yet cited? [Y/N]
【Next step】rof-identification-strategy
Info
Category Soft Skills
Name rof-literature-positioning
Version v20260724
Size 4.69KB
Updated At 2026-07-29
Language