| 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
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
