---
name: ecopol-topic-selection
description: Use when judging whether a topic is a timely, important policy question the Economic Policy (EP) Panel would commission and want to debate. Tests Panel-worthiness and policy timeliness; it does not invent evidence or citations.
---

# Topic Selection (ecopol-topic-selection)

## When to trigger

- You are deciding whether a question is worth pitching to *Economic Policy* or developing for a possible commission
- A coauthor asks "is this an EP paper, or a field-journal paper dressed up as policy?"
- The topic is technically interesting but you cannot name the **decision** a policymaker faces
- The question risks reading as last decade's debate rather than a live European/global policy issue
- You need to know which of the two likely discussants (academic vs. policy) would find it worth their time

## The EP topic bar: would the Panel commission this?

Since the 2025 relaunch, EP is **commissioned and online-only** — the Managing Editor invites papers on the journal's thematic priorities; unsolicited papers are not accepted (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). In practice the realistic route is to **become the obvious person to commission**: circulate a working draft, pitch the Managing Editor, or get visible inside the CEPR/CESifo/Sciences Po networks. So topic selection is really *Panel selection*: would the Panel put this in front of two discussants and a room of economists and policymakers?

A topic clears the EP bar when it satisfies all four:

1. **Timely and live.** There is a current policy decision, reform, or debate on the table — not a settled question. EP's subtitle is *Papers on European and Global Issues*; a European or global policy hook is a strong signal.
2. **Important.** The stakes are first-order — money, welfare, institutions — large enough that a finance ministry or central bank would care about the answer.
3. **Tractable with credible evidence.** There is identifying variation or a disciplined model that can actually answer it, not just describe it.
4. **A clear decision-relevant takeaway.** You can state, in one sentence, what a policymaker should do (or stop doing, or reconsider) if your result holds.

## Branch by what kind of policy question it is

| If the question is… | The Panel will want… | The desk-reject risk |
|---------------------|----------------------|----------------------|
| Evaluation of an enacted policy | a credible counterfactual + a magnitude that matters | "interesting estimate, no policy lever" |
| A proposed/forthcoming reform | a forward-looking, model-disciplined projection with stated assumptions | "speculation without discipline" |
| A macro/fiscal/monetary diagnosis | timeliness + a number a central bank/ministry can act on | "commentary, not a paper" |
| A cross-country / EU-institutional issue | comparable data + a genuinely European/global "so what" | "one-country study with EU branding bolted on" |

## How to sharpen a weak topic

- Write the **headline policy sentence first**: "Policy X raised/lowered Y by Z; therefore a policymaker should ___." If you cannot fill the blank, it is not yet an EP topic.
- Identify the **two audiences** in the panel room: name the academic discussant's subfield and the policy discussant's institution. A topic that excites only one is at risk.
- Pressure-test timeliness: is the decision being made now, or did it close? EP rewards papers that arrive while the debate is open.
- Separate the *novel finding* from the *novel question*. EP can reward a sharp answer to an old question if the policy moment is live, but the policy relevance must be unmistakable.

## Checklist

- [ ] One-sentence headline that names a policy decision and a magnitude
- [ ] The question is live — a current European or global policy debate, not a closed one
- [ ] Stakes are first-order; a ministry/central bank/Commission would care about the answer
- [ ] There is credible identifying variation or a disciplined model, not just description
- [ ] Both panel personas (academic + policy discussant) would find it worth debating
- [ ] It is distinguishable from an AEJ:EP / J.Pub.E. field paper — the policy decision, not the method, is the point
- [ ] Process facts (commissioned-only, online-only) cited from `resources/official-source-map.md` or marked 待核实

## Anti-patterns

- A clean estimate with **no policy lever** — EP is not a field journal that rewards identification for its own sake
- A topic pitched purely to economists, ignoring the policy discussant who will be in the room
- Branding a single-country study as "European" without a comparative or institutional payoff
- Reviving a settled debate with no live decision attached
- Assuming you can submit unsolicited — confirm the commissioning route (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)
- Inventing editor names, conference dates, or fees instead of marking 待核实

## Output format

```text
【Journal】Economic Policy (EP)
【Skill】ecopol-topic-selection
【Headline policy sentence】<decision + magnitude + recommendation>
【Timeliness】live debate? (which current policy decision)
【Panel personas】academic discussant subfield / policy discussant institution
【Verdict】Panel-worthy / sharpen / reroute to field journal
【Sibling boundary】why EP not AEJ:EP / Brookings / J.Pub.E.
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实
【Next skill】ecopol-literature-positioning
```