On the heels of the January announcement regarding revised policies for editorial conflicts of interest, at this summer's interim meeting the AEA executive committee took up the question of editorial "taste." For example, QJE routinely desk rejects articles that are methodologically sound because they do not match the taste of the editors.
However, some authors struggle to understand what exactly taste is and whether it is worth their time to even submit a paper. In some cases, the PhD students of renowned scholars waste weeks or even months trying to write up results that will never get published.
Thus for the AEA journals, both including the "flagship" AER and the "consolation prize" AEJ journals, as a handy reference we provide a list of pre-approved findings.
1. Showing that under performance by women can be explained solely by social sanction
2. Showing that under performance by men is driven by dispositions or other individual factors
3. Demonstrating the value of coordinated, single choice school placement. Replications of existing findings with new data are more than welcome.
4. Most any paper with "strategyproof" in the abstract. Using this word in the title may result in a rare desk-accept.
5. Impact of fetal trauma, including replication of known findings from medical literature
6. Effects of mass media on teen pregnancy
Of course, matching with this list does not automatically mean the paper will be accepted, only that it will not be rejected for lack of contribution. Note moreover that this is not a complete list; however, those with findings to the contrary of the pre-approved findings above are gently advised to seek an alternative outlet.
The Executive committee will update this list every decade or so as the bounds of acceptable discourse shift.