jm-literature-positioning
GitHub针对JM投稿，将论文定位融入实质性营销对话，避免被拒为“新情境复制”。通过命名对话、界定主流认知局限、防御新情境质疑并连接管理启示，提升论文贡献度。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jm-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jm-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when positioning a Journal of Marketing (JM) manuscript in the literature — joining a substantive marketing conversation and defending against the \"new-context replication\" rejection. Positions the paper; it does not build the mechanism (jm-theory-development) or write the contribution statement (jm-contribution-framing)."
}
Literature Positioning (jm-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The intro reads as "no one has studied X in setting Y" (gap-spotting)
- A reviewer says the work "applies existing findings to a new context"
- You are unsure which substantive conversation your paper belongs to
- The cited literature is a methods reading list rather than a substantive one
JM's positioning bar: a substantive conversation, not a gap
JM's stated exclusion is sharp: papers that "merely replicate existing theory or findings or apply an existing set of findings to a new context" are rejected as not offering sufficiently new insight. That makes the classic "gap in the literature" move insufficient at JM. A gap is not a contribution; a substantively important question whose answer changes what the field and practitioners believe is. Position the paper as joining and advancing a real marketing conversation — about a market, customer, channel, brand, or policy problem — and show what new, consequential understanding you add.
How to position
- Name the conversation in substantive terms (e.g., advertising effectiveness, pricing fairness, customer-base dynamics, brand-purpose backlash, marketing-finance value), not by method.
- State the prevailing understanding and where it is incomplete or wrong for a consequential class of real situations.
- Defend novelty against "new context": articulate what is theoretically and substantively different — a new mechanism, a reversal, a previously invisible boundary condition, a managerially decisive magnitude — not merely a new industry/country/platform.
- Cite the substantive canon of the conversation (the works practitioners and scholars treat as load-bearing), plus directly adjacent JM/marketing work, so the editor can route the paper to the right Coeditor and reviewers.
- Bridge to relevance: tie the conversation to a decision managers, policy makers, or society face — JM's dual mandate runs through the front end, not just the discussion.
The "new-context" defense (write it explicitly)
For each potential reviewer objection "we already know this," prepare one sentence: What about the answer is new, surprising, or decision-changing beyond what prior work already told us? If you cannot write that sentence, the paper is a new-context replication and needs a sharper question (return to jm-topic-selection).
Before / after: rewriting a gap-spotting front end
Before (gap-spotting; invites a desk reject): "Although influencer endorsements have been studied extensively, no research has examined them in live-stream commerce. We fill this gap."
After (conversation-joining, JM register): "The prevailing view in the advertising-effectiveness conversation is that endorser credibility transfers to the brand. We show that in live selling this transfer reverses once viewers watch other buyers hesitate in real time — a boundary condition that flips the optimal influencer-tier decision for e-commerce category managers."
The rewrite names the conversation, states the prevailing understanding, supplies a reversal rather than a gap, and lands on a decision. Run every intro paragraph through this before/after test until the "no one has studied" sentence disappears.
What the desk reader scans for
Within the first two pages, the handling Coeditor is judging whether the paper advances marketing thought or recycles it. Anticipate these implicit screens:
- Is the question substantively important to marketing — would a brand, channel, retail, or policy audience recognize the stakes without coaching?
- Does the positioning promise something we did not know about marketing, rather than about one setting?
- Are the load-bearing citations substantive marketing works, so the paper routes to the right reviewer pool?
- Is the managerial or societal payoff visible before the method ever appears?
Checklist
- The substantive conversation is named (not a method label)
- Prevailing understanding stated and its limit pinpointed
- Explicit "new context" defense written for the likely objection
- Substantive canon + adjacent JM/marketing work cited (routing-aware)
- Managerial/policy/societal stakes tied into the positioning
- No "first to study X in Y" sentence stands as the contribution
Anti-patterns
- Gap-spotting: "Prior work has not examined X in context Y."
- Method-defined positioning: framing the contribution by estimator or dataset novelty.
- Citation dump: an undifferentiated wall of references with no conversation.
- Context-as-contribution: treating a new setting as inherently novel.
- Relevance deferred: leaving all managerial stakes to the discussion section.
Output format
【Conversation joined】[substantive, not method]
【Prevailing understanding & its limit】[...]
【New-context defense】new/surprising/decision-changing because [...]
【Canon + adjacent JM work cited】[...]
【Managerial/policy/societal stakes】[...]
【Next step】jm-methods
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:49
