From jams-skills
Positions a JAMS manuscript's contribution against the marketing literature — locating it in the right stream, defending against 'incremental / new-context' challenges, and citing the substantive canon editors expect.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jams-skills:jams-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The contribution relative to prior marketing work is fuzzy or overstated
JAMS is broad, so the first positioning move is naming which marketing-science stream the paper joins — strategy/performance, B2B/channels, services, retailing, sales, branding, innovation, marketing–finance, sustainability, or consumer behavior — and reading the gap inside that stream. A contribution that floats above all streams reads as unmoored; a contribution buried in one narrow niche reads as incremental. JAMS wants the paper sitting at a live, consequential edge of an established conversation.
Position on three axes at once:
Prepare a one-sentence answer to each before a reviewer raises it:
A compact way to make positioning auditable — and a frequent JAMS device — is a contribution/comparison table in the front end: rows are the closest prior papers, columns are the dimensions that matter (construct studied, mechanism, moderators, data/method, managerial outcome), and your paper is the last row showing what it adds. This turns "we extend the literature" into a visible gap. Keep the columns honest; a reviewer who is one of those prior authors will read it.
In every case, end the positioning with the same two sentences you will reuse downstream: the new theoretical understanding, and the new managerial guidance.
Area editors at JAMS know their stream's active debates, so position toward where the conversation is heading, not only where it has been. Check recent JAMS issues, special-issue calls, and editorials for the priorities the journal is signaling (e.g., sustainability/stakeholder marketing, AI in marketing, the marketing–finance interface), and locate your gap relative to those when it is honest to do so. This is positioning, not pandering — do not bolt a trendy keyword onto an unrelated paper, but if your contribution genuinely speaks to a live stream priority, say so explicitly so the editor sees the fit.
JAMS papers carry positioning in two places, and they must agree. The introduction states the gap and the contribution compactly, in service of the question. A dedicated theoretical-background / conceptual-development section then does the deeper work — reviewing the stream, surfacing the tension, and motivating each hypothesis. Do not duplicate a full literature review in the intro; do not leave the intro without a clear gap statement. The contribution sentences in the intro should be the same ones the discussion revisits at the end — a paper whose claimed contribution drifts between intro and discussion reads as unsettled.
【Stream joined】strategy / B2B / services / retailing / sales / branding / innovation / mkt-finance / consumer
【Gap — theoretical】[...]
【Gap — empirical】[...]
【Gap — managerial】[...]
【Closest prior work distinguished】[paper A], [paper B], [paper C]
【"Already knew it" answer】[...]
【"New context" answer】[...]
【Citation hygiene】APA consistent; canon complete? yes/fix
【Next skill】jams-contribution-framing
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jams-skillsPositions a JM manuscript in a substantive marketing conversation, defending against the 'new-context replication' rejection by naming the conversation, stating the prevailing understanding, and writing an explicit new-context defense.
Positions a Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) manuscript against the closest behavioral, modeling, and methods literatures to frame the contribution as an advance, not a better application. Uses AMA citation conventions.
Positions a JMS manuscript against the literature by naming the theoretical conversation and showing what the paper adds. Use when the literature review lacks argument or reviewers question the contribution.