jais-literature-positioning

Literature Positioning (jais-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• Your introduction reads as "no one has studied X" gap-spotting rather than joining a live debate
• You borrow heavily from a reference discipline but never connect to the IS conversation
• A reviewer says the paper "does not engage the relevant IS literature" or "reinvents a known result"
• You are unsure which IS sub-tradition's scholars are your reviewers, and so which canon to cite
• You cannot answer "why JAIS rather than ISR / MISQ / JMIS" from the front end alone
• You are writing a Literature Review submission and need to justify which literature and why

What positioning is for at JAIS

Positioning is not a courtesy survey of prior work; at a theory-forward journal it is where you earn the right to make a contribution. The front end must convince a pluralistic editor of three things in quick succession: that there is a live IS conversation worth advancing, that you know it well enough to move it, and that JAIS is where this move belongs. Everything else in the paper — theory, method, evidence — is read against the stake you set here. Weak positioning is not a stylistic flaw; it is the most common reason a competent paper is desk-rejected for fit.

Position for a pluralistic, theory-forward audience

JAIS draws reviewers from across the IS field's traditions — behavioral, economic, design-science, organizational, and critical/philosophical — because the journal is "inclusive in topics, level and unit of analysis, theory, method and philosophical and research approach." Two consequences for positioning. First, you cannot assume your reviewer shares your sub-tradition's shorthand: define your conversation explicitly. Second, because JAIS "encourages theory based multi- or inter-disciplinary research," the strongest front ends show how an IS phenomenon lets you speak back to a reference discipline, not just import from it.

Build the positioning in three moves

1. Name the conversation, not the gap. State the ongoing IS debate your paper enters and the specific claim within it you advance or contest. "Prior work disagrees about whether X; we show when each side holds" beats "no one has examined X." A gap is a hole; a conversation is a stake — JAIS reviewers fund stakes, not holes.
2. Engage the IS canon and JAIS's own discourse. Cite the foundational IS work the conversation rests on, and — where relevant — JAIS's own theory and review pieces, so the editor sees the paper is in dialogue with the journal's intellectual project, not parachuting in.
3. Make the cross-disciplinary move legible. If you borrow from economics, psychology, sociology, or computer science, show what the IS context adds back to that discipline. JAIS rewards the round trip, and a front end that only imports reads as a borrowed-theory application before the reviewer reaches the method.

Position relative to the siblings, explicitly

JAIS shares the Senior Scholars' Basket with MISQ, ISR, JMIS, EJIS, ISJ, JSIS, and JIT. Reviewers will ask "why JAIS?" Be ready: a paper whose contribution is the theory or the conceptual framework itself is a natural JAIS fit (it has a standalone Theory category); a paper that is primarily a hard identification result may read as ISR; a strongly design-science artifact may read as MISQ; an applied systems/economic-modeling paper may read as JMIS. State the fit in the cover letter and let the front end reinforce it. The positioning should make the JAIS reader feel the paper is in dialogue with the journal's own theory-and-method project, not merely seeking a high-ranked outlet — that perception of belonging is what carries a paper past the editor's fit screen.

Two failure modes JAIS reviewers name by name

• Single-silo positioning. The front end cites only the author's home sub-tradition (say, only behavioral IS) while the reviewer pool spans economics, design science, and interpretive work. Cure: anchor the conversation in terms recognizable across traditions, then specialize.
• Import-without-return. The paper borrows a reference-discipline theory (economics, psychology, sociology, CS) and applies it to an IS setting without changing what that theory predicts. JAIS calls this a borrowed-theory application; cure it by making the IS context revise the source theory.

Cite JAIS's own discourse where it exists

A small but effective signal of fit is engaging JAIS's own published conversation on your topic — its Theory pieces, its literature reviews, its Research Perspectives. This is not citation-stuffing the home journal; it shows the editor your paper extends a discussion the journal already values, and it helps the SE see continuity with the journal's intellectual agenda. Where JAIS has not yet covered your phenomenon (common for genuinely novel digital topics), say so plainly and let that absence motivate a Foundational or Theory framing rather than papering over it with loosely related cites.

For Literature Review submissions, positioning is the method

JAIS's Literature Review category (SE Gregory Vial, 待核实) recognizes two genres: a structured synthesis that informs new directions, and theory development/elaboration through review. Either way, the boundary of the literature you include is a defended choice — state inclusion/exclusion criteria, the search and coding procedure, and the theoretical payoff the synthesis produces. A review without a method and a forward-looking contribution is a desk-reject here.

Checklist

• The front end names a live IS conversation and the precise claim within it
• The relevant IS canon (and JAIS's own discourse where apt) is engaged, not just cited
• Any borrowed reference-discipline theory is shown to gain something back from the IS context
• The "why JAIS, not MISQ/ISR/JMIS" answer is implicit in the positioning and explicit in the cover letter
• Self-citations are worded neutrally for double-blind review
• For a Literature Review: scope, search/coding method, and theoretical payoff are stated
• Citations are real and verifiable (no invented exemplars); APA 6th style
• The front end alone makes a pluralistic editor feel the paper belongs in JAIS's project
• Process facts quoted are from the source map or marked 待核实

Referee pushback mapped to the positioning fix

• "This is a borrowed-theory application; what does it add to IS?" → Make the cross-disciplinary round trip explicit: show how the IS context revises or extends the source theory's predictions, not just borrows them.
• "The paper does not engage the relevant IS literature." → Name the live IS conversation and the canonical works that anchor it; add JAIS's own discourse where the topic has a history in the journal.
• "Why JAIS rather than ISR or MISQ?" → If the payoff is the theory/framework itself, foreground that — JAIS's Theory category and developmental ethos make it the natural home; say so in the cover letter.
• "The review has no boundaries." → State inclusion/exclusion criteria, the search and coding procedure, and the theoretical destination the synthesis reaches.

Worked vignette (illustrative)

A team studies how generative-AI assistants reshape knowledge-worker collaboration, leaning on psychological theories of trust. A weak front end says "no prior study examines AI-assistant trust" and cites only HCI work. A JAIS-grade front end names a live IS conversation — say, the long debate over how automation reallocates agency between people and systems — states which side it advances, cites the IS canon that frames that debate, and then makes the round trip: the AI-assistant setting revises the trust theory because the "trustee" now adapts to the user in real time, a feature the borrowed theory never modeled. That revision, fed back to psychology, is the cross-disciplinary contribution JAIS rewards. The cover letter then says plainly why this is JAIS (the theoretical reframing is the point) and not a pure identification paper for ISR.

Anti-patterns

• A "research gap" front end with no debate, so the contribution reads as novelty-for-its-own-sake.
• Importing a reference-discipline theory and never connecting to IS scholars or JAIS's project.
• Citing only your own sub-tradition while the reviewer pool spans five traditions.
• A literature review with no inclusion criteria, no coding method, and no theoretical destination.
• Self-identifying citations ("in our prior work") that break double-blind anonymity.

Output format

【Journal】Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS)
【Conversation joined】the live IS debate + the claim advanced/contested
【IS canon engaged】foundational works + JAIS discourse cited
【Cross-disciplinary round trip】what the IS context gives back to the reference discipline
【Why JAIS not sibling】one sentence
【If review】scope + method + theoretical payoff stated
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实
【Next skill】jais-methods