Contribution is interesting to the target audience

What to Check

A paper’s contribution must be interesting to its intended audience — broadly, to economists at the journals the authors are targeting. “Interesting” means the answer to the research question would update a reader’s beliefs in a non-trivial way, or would change how researchers or policymakers act. A contribution can be new and feasible but still uninteresting if the question has low stakes or the answer is fully predictable.

How to Check

Apply the following rubric. A paper that scores “yes” on at least two of the three criteria passes.

Criterion 1 — Belief update: If the main result were null (no effect / no relationship), would that be surprising and publishable on its own? If yes, the question is genuinely open and interesting. If the null result would be dismissed as “obviously expected,” the question has a predetermined answer.

Criterion 2 — Stakes: Does the paper connect to a question that affects material outcomes for a non-trivial number of people or has implications for economic policy, theory, or methodology? Assess whether the introduction makes a credible case for stakes — not rhetorical inflation, but factual description of consequences.

Criterion 3 — Reader takeaway: After reading the abstract, can a senior economist at a target journal articulate what they now believe that they did not believe before? Ask: “So what?” If the answer is “we now know X, which implies Y for policy/theory,” the paper passes. If the answer is “we confirmed what everyone already thought,” it fails.

Pass Condition

The paper passes at least 2 of the 3 criteria above, and the introduction makes the case for interestingness through factual description of stakes and a clear statement of what the reader will learn.

Failure Examples

1. Predictable result, no policy stakes: Paper estimates that higher rainfall increases agricultural output in a well-studied region, using a standard OLS specification. The sign is known; the magnitude matches prior work. No new mechanism is identified. Fails criterion 1 (null would not be interesting) and criterion 3 (reader learns nothing new about the world).
2. Interesting question, understated in introduction: Paper identifies a novel mechanism linking political connections to environmental enforcement, with large estimated effects. But the introduction spends three paragraphs on background and one sentence on results. A referee skimming the intro would not identify the contribution. Fails criterion 3 as written — the paper itself may pass after revision.
3. Rhetorical inflation without substance: Introduction states “understanding this relationship is crucial for policy.” No factual case is made for why, how many people are affected, or what policy would change. Fails criterion 2.

Notes

• Interestingness is the hardest criterion to assess and the most subjective. Disagreement between two agents or reviewers is expected. When in doubt, flag as warning rather than blocker and require the author to respond to the “so what?” question explicitly.
• A paper can fail this test at the proposal stage but pass after results are in — surprising null or heterogeneous results often make a paper more interesting than anticipated.

References

• Shapiro, J. M. (2022). How do I construct a referee report? Journal of Economic Perspectives. (unpublished note, widely circulated)
• Cochrane, J. H. (2005). Writing tips for Ph.D. students.