Literature Positioning Map

职业

分类

学术

• If output/paper_set.json exists, read it first. Papers already collected for this topic can inform the positioning without redundant searches.
• search_papers (query: the core topic, sortBy: "citedByCount", matchCount: 15) → immediately see the field's citation hierarchy. The most-cited papers are what referees will compare you to.
• search_papers (query: core topic, minYear: 2020, matchCount: 15) → the recent frontier and scooping risks.
• These two searches frame everything that follows. Save results to output/paper_set.json (merge if exists) and append queries to output/search_log.md.

Step 1 — Inner ring (direct competitors):

• search_papers (query: the exact question + method, matchCount: 15) → find papers doing the closest thing.
• get_paper_details_batch (paper IDs from top 5 results) → read abstracts to confirm true overlap.

Step 2 — Middle ring (same question, different methods OR same method, different question):

• search_papers (query: the same question with alternative methods, matchCount: 10)
• search_papers (query: the same method applied to related questions, matchCount: 10)

Step 3 — Outer ring (seminal and contextual):

• top_cited_articles (journalNames + query: topic) → identify canonical papers within key journals that may not have appeared in keyword searches.

Step 4 — Verify specific papers:

• get_paper_details or get_paper_details_batch (paper IDs) → when the user mentions a specific paper or when you need to verify what a close paper actually does vs. what its title suggests.

Citation-aware comparison set

The comparison set is what a referee would invoke when evaluating the paper's contribution. This is heavily correlated with citation count:

• High-citation close papers (500+ citations) are the biggest positioning challenge. If your paper is close to one of these, the referee already knows that paper and will ask "what's new?" You must differentiate explicitly.
• Medium-citation close papers (100-499) define the active conversation. Your contribution must be stated relative to these.
• Low-citation close papers (<100, especially recent) represent scooping risk. A 2024 paper with 20 citations doing nearly the same thing is a bigger threat to your submission than a 2005 paper with 2,000 citations, because the 2024 paper hasn't been absorbed yet and the referee may not know it.

When identifying the "closest 3-5 papers," include at least one high-citation anchor and at least one recent paper. Do not let the comparison set consist entirely of niche recent work that a referee has never heard of.

Citation management

• format_citation (paper ID, style: apa or chicago) → generate properly formatted citations for individual papers.
• export_citations (list of paper IDs, format: bibtex) → batch export references for the LaTeX bibliography file. Use this after completing the literature map to give the user a ready-to-use .bib file.

What to avoid

• Laundry-list literature reviews ("this paper relates to several strands")
• Empty novelty claims such as "few papers study" or "the literature is silent on"
• Citing a paper only because it shares a noun with the current paper
• Claiming novelty without having searched
• Treating every cited paper as equally relevant

Dimensions of differentiation

When comparing the current paper to the closest work, be specific about which dimension the novelty lies in:

Weak differentiators (be cautious):

• "We use more recent data" alone is rarely sufficient
• "We study a different country" needs a reason the setting matters
• "We use a different empirical method" needs a reason the method matters for the answer

Contribution writing rules

• State the closest paper or papers by name in the first sentence.
• Explain whether the difference is in mechanism, data, identification, setting, or implication.
• Say what the present paper can claim that the closest papers cannot.
• Use cautious language unless the gap is truly verified ("we contribute to" not "we are the first to").
• If two or three papers together cover most of what you do, explain what the combination still misses.

Related-literature section structure

Organize by intellectual contribution, not by topic label:

Option A — By disagreement: Group papers by which side of a debate they support, then explain where the current paper enters.

Option B — By mechanism: Group papers by the economic channel they emphasize, then explain the new channel or evidence.

Option C — By method/setting: Group papers by empirical approach, then explain why the new approach changes the answer.

Never use Option D — By topic label ("this paper relates to the literature on X, the literature on Y, and the literature on Z" with no differentiation within each bucket).

Required deliverables

Produce:

• a literature matrix using assets/literature-matrix-template.md (populated with actual papers from searches)
• a closest-paper list (3-5 papers with specific differentiation for each)
• a contribution paragraph ready for the introduction
• a related-literature section outline organized by one of the structures above

Output format

# Literature positioning memo
## Closest papers (3-5, with specific differentiation)
## Comparison dimensions (which dimension of novelty is strongest)
## Where this paper overlaps (be honest)
## Where this paper differs (be specific)
## What claim is safe
## What claim is too strong
## Draft contribution paragraph
## Draft related-literature outline (organized by disagreement, mechanism, or method)
## Papers to watch (recent working papers that could scoop or complement)

Reference files

Read if needed:

• references/writing-norms.md

Guardrails

• "To our knowledge" requires real verification effort — search before using this phrase.
• A literature section should reduce, not increase, ambiguity about the paper's contribution.
• If the paper is too close to an existing one, say that directly and propose a repositioning.
• Do not pad the literature review with tangentially related papers.
• If you find a paper that substantially overlaps, tell the user immediately.
• Verify claims about what prior papers do or do not do by reading their abstracts.

Example prompts

• "Position this corporate-finance paper against the payout and investment literatures."
• "Draft a related-literature roadmap for a commercial real-estate distress paper."
• "What is the nearest paper to this anomaly paper, and how do I differentiate mine?"
• "Search for any recent working papers on mortgage forbearance and housing supply."
• "Build a literature matrix for a paper on climate risk and property values."