---
name: jmr-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning a Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) manuscript against the closest behavioral, modeling, and methods literatures so the contribution reads as a genuine advance — not a better application of an existing design or model. Spans both of JMR's methodological streams and uses AMA author-year citation conventions.
---

# Literature Positioning (jmr-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The front end reads as "we apply method X to context Y" (a better-application risk)
- The closest prior papers — by method, model, and substance — are not named and distinguished
- A reviewer might say "this has been done" or "the marginal contribution is unclear"
- You are unsure which literature(s) you are actually contributing to

## Position on three axes at once

Because JMR spans behavioral experiments and econometric/structural modeling, a JMR paper usually sits in **three** conversations simultaneously. Map the nearest papers in each:

1. **Substantive** — the marketing phenomenon (e.g., pricing, advertising, choice, satisfaction, channels). What do we currently believe, and what does your paper change?
2. **Method / model** — the design or estimator lineage (e.g., the experimental paradigm, the demand model, the identification strategy). Whose approach are you extending, and how is yours different or better?
3. **Mechanism / theory** — the process or economic primitive your paper advances.

A contribution that is new on only the substantive axis but mechanically identical to prior work, or new only on method with no marketing payoff, is the classic JMR rejection.

## Beyond gap-spotting

"No one has studied X" is not a JMR contribution. Frame the positioning as a **tension or unresolved question** in the conversation that your design is uniquely able to settle — a conflicting finding, an untested assumption, an identification problem prior work could not solve, or a substantive prediction no existing method could test.

## Distinguish from the closest paper explicitly

Name the single nearest paper and state, in one or two sentences, what is different — different mechanism, different identification, different data, or a result that overturns or qualifies theirs. Reviewers at JMR are domain experts (Coeditors route by domain), so a vague "we differ" will be caught.

## Citation conventions

JMR uses **AMA author-year** style (e.g., "Thorelli (1960)" / "(Thorelli 1960)"; list all authors up to three, "et al." for four or more). There is **no limit on the number of references**, so cite the relevant behavioral *and* modeling work rather than only one stream. Configure your reference manager to AMA, not APA-numeric.

## Anti-patterns

- Gap-spotting ("understudied") in place of a real tension.
- Citing only the behavioral stream (or only the modeling stream) for a paper that touches both.
- Failing to distinguish the single closest competitor.
- A literature review that lists papers instead of building the argument toward your contribution.

## Output format

```text
[Target] JMR
[Substantive axis] nearest papers → what changes
[Method/model axis] lineage → how yours differs
[Mechanism axis] theory advanced
[Closest paper] cite (AMA) → one-sentence distinction
[Tension framed] yes/no
[Next skill] jmr-methods
```

## Resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md)
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md)