---
name: jmis-literature-positioning
description: Use when staking a Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) manuscript's contribution against the IS literature and the basket siblings — showing it advances an IS-management/economics conversation rather than only a reference discipline. Positions the work; it does not build the mechanism (jmis-theory-development) or write the contribution statement (jmis-contribution-framing).
---

# Literature Positioning (jmis-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The front end reads as a reference-discipline paper (pure economics, marketing, CS, OB) that merely uses an IS setting
- You cannot name the specific IS conversation you are joining and changing
- A reviewer says the contribution is incremental, or that the paper "ignores prior IS work"
- You are unsure whether the natural home is JMIS, MISQ, ISR, JAIS, or Management Science

## Position to an IS conversation, not just a reference discipline

JMIS is an IS journal, so the literature you must engage first is the **IS literature** — IT business value, digital platforms, e-commerce, IS economics, security/privacy, decision support/analytics — even when your toolkit comes from economics or computer science. The test a JMIS reviewer applies: *what did the IS field believe, and how does this paper move that belief?* Borrowing a reference-discipline method is fine; positioning the contribution *only* in the reference discipline is a desk-reject signal because the IS audience cannot see the advance.

## Build the positioning in three moves

1. **Name the stream and its current frontier.** State the specific JMIS-relevant conversation (e.g., "the IT-value complementarities literature," "the platform-openness debate," "the privacy-disclosure economics stream") and what it currently holds.
2. **Locate the gap as a tension, not an absence.** "No one has studied X" is weak. "Stream A predicts more openness raises participation, but B implies it invites free-riding; we resolve when each dominates" is a JMIS-grade gap.
3. **State the delta.** One sentence: what the field believed, and what it should believe after your paper.

## Engage the basket and cite the right precedents

JMIS reviewers expect you to know the IS basket. Engage prior JMIS, MISQ, ISR, and JAIS work on your phenomenon — not just econ/CS papers. Failing to cite the closest IS predecessors (especially prior JMIS papers on the same platform/value/security question) reads as not knowing the field. Where your evidence comes from a reference discipline, cite that frontier too, but subordinate it to the IS contribution.

## Use sibling boundaries to sharpen, not just to defend

| If a reviewer says… | Reposition by… |
|---------------------|----------------|
| "This belongs in MISQ as a design-science paper" | Foregrounding the *managerial/economic* value question, not the artifact build |
| "This is an economics paper with an IS label" | Showing the IT artifact is essential to the mechanism and the takeaway is for IS practice |
| "This is single-paradigm; try ISR" | Either embracing JMIS's clean management/economics framing or, if the edge is silo-bridging, considering ISR honestly |
| "This is just a better algorithm" | Reframing around managerial utility and IS decision-making, or rerouting to a CS venue |

## Worked vignette: turning an absence into a tension (illustrative)

A privacy paper opens: "Little is known about how breach disclosure laws affect firms." That is an absence, and a JMIS reviewer will read it as under-positioned. Reframed as a tension: *the security-economics literature argues mandatory disclosure disciplines firms into investing more in protection [signaling/deterrence], yet the disclosure literature implies it can trigger reputational over-reaction and under-reporting; we identify which force dominates and for whom.* Now the gap is a live debate the IS field can place, the contribution is a resolution rather than a first look, and the closest IS predecessors (prior JMIS/MISQ security-economics papers) become the conversation you advance rather than a citation pile.

## Referee pushback mapped to a repositioning move

- *"This reads like an economics paper that happens to use IS data."* → Move the IT artifact into the mechanism and make the takeaway an IS-management implication, not a generic economic one.
- *"The contribution is incremental over [prior JMIS paper]."* → State the delta against that exact paper in one sentence: what it could not show that you now can.
- *"You ignore the design-science / behavioral side of this question."* → Either bridge it explicitly (and weigh ISR) or argue why the management/economics framing is the right cut for JMIS.

## Checklist

- [ ] The specific IS conversation (stream) is named, with its current frontier
- [ ] The gap is framed as a tension/contradiction, not a mere absence
- [ ] A one-sentence delta states what the IS field believed vs. will believe
- [ ] Closest IS predecessors (incl. prior JMIS) are cited, not just reference-discipline work
- [ ] Reference-discipline borrowing is subordinated to the IS contribution
- [ ] Fit vs. MISQ/ISR/JAIS/Management Science is argued where relevant
- [ ] The three-paragraph skeleton (phenomenon / tension / delta) can each be written
- [ ] The front end reads as written for JMIS's management-economics conversation, not retrofitted

## Show you know the JMIS conversation specifically

JMIS reviewers notice when a paper engages the IS basket generically but skips the *JMIS* lineage on its own topic. If you write on platforms, e-commerce, IT value, or security/privacy economics, the journal has published streams on exactly those questions; engaging them signals you are joining JMIS's conversation, not just any IS conversation. This is also where the management/economics cut matters: position against the IT-value, platform-economics, or security-economics literatures (JMIS's home turf) rather than only against design-science or pure-behavioral streams, which read as a better fit for MISQ. The strongest front ends make the reader feel the paper was *written for* JMIS, not retrofitted to it.

## Anti-patterns

- Positioning only in economics/marketing/CS with no IS stream named
- A literature review that summarizes papers instead of mapping a debate
- "Gap = nobody did this" with no theoretical tension
- Ignoring prior JMIS papers on the exact phenomenon (signals not knowing the field)
- Citing the IS basket as decoration while the real argument lives in the reference discipline
- Skipping prior JMIS papers on the topic while citing distant econ/CS work
- A positioning that any of the three paragraphs (phenomenon / tension / delta) cannot be written for
- Positioning against design-science/behavioral streams when the management-economics cut is the JMIS fit

## A three-paragraph positioning skeleton

A JMIS introduction's positioning usually resolves into three paragraphs. (1) **The phenomenon and stake** — a concrete IT/management development and why managers, firms, or platforms care. (2) **The IS conversation and its tension** — the specific stream you join, what it currently holds, and the contradiction or unresolved question (theory vs. evidence, or stream A vs. stream B) that your paper targets. (3) **The delta and approach** — what the field believed, what it should believe after your paper, and the leverage (identification, model, or evaluation) that lets you claim it. Reference-discipline tools appear in paragraph three as the method, never as the contribution. If a paragraph cannot be written because the stream, the tension, or the delta is missing, that is the gap to close before drafting further.

## Keep positioning honest about what is new

Resist the urge to inflate the gap. A reviewer who knows the literature will catch a "no one has studied this" claim that ignores a near-identical prior paper, and the credibility cost is high. State precisely what prior work established and where it stopped, then claim only the increment you actually deliver. Honest, well-bounded positioning that names the closest predecessor and the exact delta reads as command of the field; overstated novelty reads as not having done the reading.

## Output format

```text
【IS stream joined】name + current frontier belief
【Gap as tension】stream A vs. stream B (or theory vs. evidence)
【Delta】field believed X → should believe Y
【Closest IS predecessors】incl. prior JMIS work
【Sibling boundary handled】why JMIS not MISQ/ISR/MS
【Next step】jmis-methods
```