Literature Positioning (commres-literature-positioning)
CR is a cumulative, social-scientific journal: reviewers ask how your hypotheses extend, qualify,
or adjudicate the prior empirical communication literature. Positioning is not throat-clearing —
it places the paper where a quantitative communication scientist can see the open question, the rival
accounts, and the move your tests make.
When to trigger
- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "present study / hypotheses" paragraph
- A reviewer said you "missed obvious work" or "don't engage the debate"
- You need to distinguish your hypotheses from the closest prior empirical papers
- Your effect is solid but the contribution to communication theory is unclear
How CR wants the literature engaged
- Engage the empirical debate, not a pile of citations. Identify the live disagreement or open
question your hypotheses speak to, and cite the studies that define it — including the strongest
prior tests.
- Build to hypotheses. CR introductions march from theory and prior findings to explicit,
numbered hypotheses (and research questions); positioning sets up exactly those predictions.
- Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured,
under-tested, or confounded in prior work, and why resolving it advances communication science.
- Position against rivals. "Prior work argues X via mechanism M; we test whether M holds, is
conditional on C, or is better explained by M′." The rival becomes a tested alternative, not a foil.
- Theory over platform. Frame around the communication process or construct, not the medium or
dataset — platforms change; tested mechanisms accumulate.
Cross-area engagement (CR is read across communication science)
| If your paper is… |
also engage… |
| a media-effects experiment |
the general processing/persuasion theory it tests, not one stimulus literature |
| a survey of new-media use |
the use→effect process literature, not just platform descriptions |
| a content analysis |
the substantive effects/processing literature the coded features speak to |
| a health/political communication study |
the message/audience mechanism literature beyond one topic |
Anti-patterns
- A "literature dump" with no organizing empirical debate
- Engaging only one platform or topic niche (a common CR rejection reason)
- Hypotheses that do not follow from the cited theory and prior findings (HARKing risk)
- Strawmanning prior work, or hiding the closest competing study
- Self-citation that breaks anonymity — write self-citations in the third person (see
commres-submission)
Positioning pass for Communication Research
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the communication process,
the measured constructs, the study design, and the inferential claim; then judge whether the
manuscript answers CR's real reader: a quantitatively trained communication scientist who weighs
theory, measurement validity, identification, and effect interpretation.
- Do the pass: Build a three-column map — incumbent finding/account, unresolved tension, this
paper's tested delta; include one rival account the design must rule out and one sibling-venue
omission a referee would flag.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows so the next agent
edits rather than rediscovers the issue.
- Sibling guard: Journal of Communication (all-paradigm), Human Communication Research
(interpersonal), New Media & Society (digital). If a sibling owns the contribution, recommend
re-routing before polishing format.
- Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until
resources/official-source-map.md
has been checked and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Debate】the live empirical disagreement / open question
【Key works】the 3-6 prior tests that define it
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / confounded / untested
【Hypotheses】how H1…Hk follow from the positioned theory
【Strongest rival】the account the design will adjudicate
【Next】commres-theory-building
Supplementary resources
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Communication-Research-Skills/skills/commres-literature-positioning/SKILL.md
1---2name: commres-literature-positioning3description: Use when positioning a Communication Research (CR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a cumulative, theory-testing contribution to communication science. CR reviewers expect engagement with the empirical communication literature and the rival accounts your hypotheses adjudicate. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.4---5
6
7# Literature Positioning (commres-literature-positioning)
8
9CR is a **cumulative, social-scientific** journal: reviewers ask how your hypotheses extend, qualify,
10or adjudicate the **prior empirical communication literature**. Positioning is not throat-clearing —
11it places the paper where a quantitative communication scientist can see the open question, the rival
12accounts, and the move your tests make.
13
14## When to trigger
15
16- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "present study / hypotheses" paragraph
17- A reviewer said you "missed obvious work" or "don't engage the debate"
18- You need to distinguish your hypotheses from the closest prior empirical papers
19- Your effect is solid but the contribution to communication *theory* is unclear
20
21## How CR wants the literature engaged
22
231. **Engage the empirical debate, not a pile of citations.** Identify the live disagreement or open
24 question your hypotheses speak to, and cite the studies that *define* it — including the strongest
25 prior tests.
262. **Build to hypotheses.** CR introductions march from theory and prior findings to **explicit,
27 numbered hypotheses (and research questions)**; positioning sets up exactly those predictions.
283. **Name the gap precisely.** Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured,
29 under-tested, or confounded in prior work, and why resolving it advances communication science.
304. **Position against rivals.** "Prior work argues X via mechanism M; we test whether M holds, is
31 conditional on C, or is better explained by M′." The rival becomes a tested alternative, not a foil.
325. **Theory over platform.** Frame around the communication *process or construct*, not the medium or
33 dataset — platforms change; tested mechanisms accumulate.
34
35## Cross-area engagement (CR is read across communication science)
36
37| If your paper is… | also engage… |
38|-------------------|--------------|
39| a media-effects experiment | the general processing/persuasion theory it tests, not one stimulus literature |
40| a survey of new-media use | the use→effect process literature, not just platform descriptions |
41| a content analysis | the substantive effects/processing literature the coded features speak to |
42| a health/political communication study | the message/audience mechanism literature beyond one topic |
43
44## Anti-patterns
45
46- A "literature dump" with no organizing empirical debate
47- Engaging only one platform or topic niche (a common CR rejection reason)
48- Hypotheses that do not follow from the cited theory and prior findings (HARKing risk)
49- Strawmanning prior work, or hiding the closest competing study
50- Self-citation that breaks anonymity — write self-citations in the **third person** (see `commres-submission`)
51
52## Positioning pass for Communication Research
53
54Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the communication process,
55the measured constructs, the study design, and the inferential claim; then judge whether the
56manuscript answers CR's real reader: a quantitatively trained communication scientist who weighs
57theory, measurement validity, identification, and effect interpretation.
58
59- **Do the pass:** Build a three-column map — incumbent finding/account, unresolved tension, this
60 paper's tested delta; include one rival account the design must rule out and one sibling-venue
61 omission a referee would flag.
62- **Return a ledger:** give `claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location` rows so the next agent
63 edits rather than rediscovers the issue.
64- **Sibling guard:** *Journal of Communication* (all-paradigm), *Human Communication Research*
65 (interpersonal), *New Media & Society* (digital). If a sibling owns the contribution, recommend
66 re-routing before polishing format.
67- **Stop condition:** do not give submission-ready advice until `resources/official-source-map.md`
68 has been checked and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
69
70## Output format
71
72```
73【Debate】the live empirical disagreement / open question
74【Key works】the 3-6 prior tests that define it
75【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / confounded / untested
76【Hypotheses】how H1…Hk follow from the positioned theory
77【Strongest rival】the account the design will adjudicate
78【Next】commres-theory-building
79```
80
81## Supplementary resources
82
83- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — measurement and effects literatures by area
84- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — CR scope and double-anonymized / third-person self-citation rules
85
86---
87
88**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Communication-Research-Skills/skills/commres-literature-positioning/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain