---
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 that prior work could not have 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`).

## 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
```