Menu

Individual skill

revacc-literature-positioning

0upvotes

Use when the contribution relative to the accounting frontier and the sibling journals is fuzzy for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — joining the right disclosure/earnings/valuation conversation and stating the marginal contribution. Positions the paper; it does not sharpen the one-sentence claim (revacc-contribution-framing) or build the mechanism (revacc-theory-development).

Review-of-Accounting-Studies-Skills/skills/revacc-literature-positioning/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,405
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Literature Positioning (revacc-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The intro reads as gap-spotting ("no one has studied X") rather than joining a conversation
- You cannot name the three or four papers your result directly speaks to or overturns
- A referee asks "what do we learn beyond [prior paper]?" or "how is this not [classic result]?"
- The paper straddles disclosure, earnings, and valuation literatures without committing to one
- You are unsure whether the natural cite set is the RAST/analytical-accounting frontier or the empirical-archival frontier

## Position into a conversation, not a gap

RAST referees punish gap-spotting. The job is to identify the **specific accounting conversation** your paper joins, name the two or three works that define its current frontier, and state the **marginal move** — a new friction, a cleaner setting, a sharper construct, a model that rationalizes a puzzle, or a boundary the prior work did not reach. Because RAST runs both archival and analytical lanes, your positioning must place you on the right frontier and, where relevant, **bridge the two**: an empirical paper that tests a disclosure-theory prediction, or a model that explains an archival regularity, lands especially well at RAST.
Back to top