brycewang-stanford Literature Positioning (jmr-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The front end reads as "we apply method X to context Y" (a better-application risk)
- The closest prior papers — by method, model, and substance — are not named and distinguished
- A reviewer might say "this has been done" or "the marginal contribution is unclear"
- You are unsure which literature(s) you are actually contributing to
Position on three axes at once
Because JMR spans behavioral experiments and econometric/structural modeling, a JMR paper usually sits in three conversations simultaneously. Map the nearest papers in each:
- Substantive — the marketing phenomenon (e.g., pricing, advertising, choice, satisfaction, channels). What do we currently believe, and what does your paper change?
- Method / model — the design or estimator lineage (e.g., the experimental paradigm, the demand model, the identification strategy). Whose approach are you extending, and how is yours different or better?
- Mechanism / theory — the process or economic primitive your paper advances.
A contribution that is new on only the substantive axis but mechanically identical to prior work, or new only on method with no marketing payoff, is the classic JMR rejection.
Beyond gap-spotting
"No one has studied X" is not a JMR contribution. Frame the positioning as a tension or unresolved question in the conversation that your design is uniquely able to settle — a conflicting finding, an untested assumption, an identification problem prior work could not solve, or a substantive prediction no existing method could test.
Distinguish from the closest paper explicitly
Name the single nearest paper and state, in one or two sentences, what is different — different mechanism, different identification, different data, or a result that overturns or qualifies theirs. Reviewers at JMR are domain experts (Coeditors route by domain), so a vague "we differ" will be caught.
JMR positioning ledger
For a JMR introduction, do not leave the contribution as a paragraph of prose. Create a three-row ledger and use it to write the final positioning sentences:
| Axis | Nearest comparator | Required distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral theory | Closest psychology/consumer-behavior mechanism paper | What mechanism, boundary condition, or construct relation changes? |
| Quantitative model | Closest demand, choice, pricing, advertising, or structural-model paper | What identification, estimator, data environment, or managerial counterfactual becomes possible? |
| Marketing decision | Closest substantive marketing decision paper | What would a manager, platform, retailer, or regulator now do differently? |
The ledger must name at least one comparator on every relevant axis. If one axis is empty, either the manuscript is narrower than JMR's bar or the contribution belongs in a more specialized outlet. Turn the ledger into two sentences: "Relative to X, we ..." and "This matters for marketing because ..." Avoid a literature review that names many papers but never identifies the single closest rival.
Citation conventions
JMR uses AMA author-year style (e.g., "Thorelli (1960)" / "(Thorelli 1960)"; list all authors up to three, "et al." for four or more). There is no limit on the number of references, so cite the relevant behavioral and modeling work rather than only one stream. Configure your reference manager to AMA, not APA-numeric.
Anti-patterns
- Gap-spotting ("understudied") in place of a real tension.
- Citing only the behavioral stream (or only the modeling stream) for a paper that touches both.
- Failing to distinguish the single closest competitor.
- A literature review that lists papers instead of building the argument toward your contribution.
Output format
[Target] JMR
[Substantive axis] nearest papers → what changes
[Method/model axis] lineage → how yours differs
[Mechanism axis] theory advanced
[Closest paper] cite (AMA) → one-sentence distinction
[Tension framed] yes/no
[Next skill] jmr-methods