---
name: jcr-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning a Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) manuscript — joining a live consumer-research conversation across disciplines, problematizing rather than gap-spotting, and separating the paper from JCP, JMR, JM, and disciplinary psychology/sociology outlets.
---

# Literature Positioning (jcr-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The introduction reads as "no one has studied X" (gap-spotting)
- You cite within one field but JCR's audience spans psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics
- A reviewer says "I don't see the conversation you're joining" or "this fits JCP/JMR better"
- You need to show why the work belongs in JCR specifically

## Join a conversation, do not spot a gap

JCR's audience is **multi-disciplinary** by design — the journal is governed by a Policy Board of ~11 sponsoring professional societies, and readers come from psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, marketing, statistics, and communication. Effective positioning **problematizes**: it surfaces an assumption the existing consumer-research conversation takes for granted and shows why questioning it matters. "X has not been studied" is not a contribution; "the field assumes X, but consumption behaves otherwise, which forces us to rethink Y" is.

Because JCR's overriding criterion is **advancing understanding of consumer behavior or the conduct of consumer research**, the front end must make the focal conversation visible and locate the paper inside it — then state precisely how the paper advances, deepens, or repudiates that conversation.

## Position across disciplines, not just within one

- Identify the **base discipline** whose theory you extend (psych / anthro-soc / econ) and engage its canonical works substantively, not as name-drops.
- Translate for the **interdisciplinary reader**: a CCT paper must be legible to an experimentalist and vice versa. Avoid in-group jargon that fences off half the readership.
- Cite the **consumer-research conversation** (prior JCR and adjacent work) so the editor sees you building on, not bypassing, the field's accumulated theory.

## Separate JCR from neighboring venues

- **JCP**: tighter cognitive/affective process work; if your contribution is purely psychological mechanism with little consumption-theory advance, it may fit JCP.
- **JMR / JM**: broader marketing scope (modeling, strategy, managerial relevance); a managerial or methods contribution belongs there.
- **Disciplinary psychology/sociology journals**: if the paper makes no contribution *to consumer research*, it is mis-aimed.
- JCR's wedge: a **conceptual contribution about consumption** that an interdisciplinary consumer-research audience cares about.

## Self-citation under double-anonymized review

JCR uses double-anonymized review and permits self-citation **only if the cited work is publicly available**; phrase your own prior work neutrally (third person) and remove identifying language so anonymization is not broken in the literature review.

## Checklist

- [ ] The focal conversation is named; the paper is located inside it
- [ ] Positioning problematizes an assumption rather than spotting a gap
- [ ] At least one base discipline's canonical theory is engaged substantively
- [ ] The front end is legible to readers outside your own subfield
- [ ] Venue boundary vs. JCP / JMR / JM is defensible
- [ ] Self-citations are neutral and anonymization-safe

## Anti-patterns

- "Despite extensive research, no study has examined…" (gap-spotting).
- Citing only your own subfield for an interdisciplinary journal.
- Positioning as a marketing-tactics or modeling paper.
- Self-references that reveal author identity under masked review.

## Output format

```
【Focal conversation】which consumer-research debate
【Problematization】assumption questioned (not a gap)
【Base discipline engaged】psych / anthro-soc / econ + canonical works
【Interdisciplinary legibility】pass / fix
【Venue fit】JCR vs. JCP / JMR / JM — why JCR
【Next step】jcr-methods or jcr-contribution-framing
```