Literature Positioning (restat-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• The intro's "we contribute to several literatures" reads as a citation dump
• A referee could ask "how is this different from [obvious prior paper]?" and you lack a one-line answer
• The contribution is stated as a topic ("we study X") rather than a delta against named work
• You are unsure whether your measurement / identification advance is genuinely new

The REStat positioning bar

REStat referees are applied economists who know the closest five papers cold. Positioning must be a precise delta against named work, not a tour of a literature. Because REStat prizes measurement and credible identification, the most persuasive deltas are of two kinds: (1) identification delta — your design credibly estimates a parameter prior work could only correlate or estimate under weaker assumptions; (2) measurement delta — you measure the object better (new data, less error, a validated index) and that changes an applied conclusion. "First to study" is rarely the contribution; "first to credibly identify / cleanly measure, and it overturns/sharpens [conclusion]" is.

How to stake the contribution

1. Name the 3–5 closest papers — the ones a referee will compare you to first, by author-year.
2. State the delta against each in one clause: what they did, what you do differently, why it matters.
3. Classify your delta: new identification | better measurement | new setting that is itself informative | reconciles conflicting prior estimates.
4. Quantify the stakes where possible: "prior estimates range 0.2–0.8 because of [bias]; our design pins it at [X]."
5. State scope honestly: what your contribution does not claim (external validity, mechanism, generality).

Positioning patterns that land at REStat

Checklist

• 3–5 closest papers named by author-year, not just cited in a block
• A one-clause delta stated against each closest paper
• Delta classified (identification / measurement / setting / reconciliation)
• Stakes quantified or sharply described (what changes if you are right)
• Scope limits stated — what the contribution does NOT claim
• No "first to study" claim doing the work a real delta should do

Anti-patterns

• A literature tour (paragraphs of "X did A, Y did B, Z did C") with no delta
• "First to study [topic]" as the contribution (REStat referees discount novelty-of-topic)
• Overclaiming generality a single applied setting cannot support
• Ignoring the single closest paper because it is inconvenient (referees will name it)
• Citing methods papers to look sophisticated while the applied delta stays vague

Worked vignette: turning a tour into a delta (illustrative)

A draft opens: "A large literature studies the minimum wage's employment effects (A, B, C…). We add to this literature." A REStat referee reads that as no contribution. The fix is to name the single closest paper and state the delta: "Paper B estimated this with TWFE across staggered state increases and found a small disemployment effect; we re-estimate with a heterogeneity-robust estimator on the same variation and a better-measured teen-employment series, and the effect is statistically indistinguishable from zero — the earlier negative estimate was driven by forbidden comparisons and measurement error." That is a delta (identification + measurement) that reconciles a contested estimate, with stakes a referee can weigh.

Output format

【Closest prior work】[paper1 / paper2 / paper3 (/4/5)] by author-year
【Delta vs each】p1: [...]; p2: [...]; p3: [...]
【Delta type】identification | measurement | setting | reconciliation
【Stakes】what changes if we are right: [...]
【Scope NOT claimed】[...]
【Next step】restat-identification