From jcr-skills
Frames JCR manuscript contributions as theory advances, deepens, or repudiations and drafts the mandatory 300-word Consumer Relevance and Contribution Statement.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jcr-skills:jcr-contribution-framingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- Results exist but the "so what for consumer theory" is implicit or thin
JCR's overriding criterion is advancing understanding of consumer behavior or the conduct of consumer research. A finding is not a contribution until you say, in plain terms, which theoretical conversation changes and how. Frame the contribution as one of three moves and name the target theory:
Make the claim conceptual, not merely empirical: a robust effect with no theory advance reads as a technical report. Both the introduction and the discussion should carry an explicit "what we now understand about consumers that we did not before" sentence, and the discussion should spell out implications for the base discipline(s) — psychology, anthropology, sociology, or economics.
New submissions require a Consumer Relevance and Contribution Statement of up to 300 words — a JCR-specific gate, distinct from the 200-word abstract. It forces you to articulate, separately from the abstract:
Draft it as a standalone argument, not a paraphrase of the abstract. Avoid jargon that fences off readers from other disciplines; an experimentalist and a CCT scholar should both grasp the stakes.
Before finalizing the 300-word statement, run three cuts:
| Cut | Question | Fix if weak |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer relevance | Could a reader explain why the finding matters for consumers, not only firms or managers? | Replace institutional payoff with consumer experience, identity, welfare, practice, or choice implications. |
| Theory movement | Which concept, mechanism, or boundary in consumer research changes? | Name the theory and use advance/deepen/repudiate language instead of "adds evidence." |
| Interdisciplinary reach | Would both a behavioral researcher and a CCT/interdisciplinary reader see the point? | Translate method-specific language into the consumer phenomenon and the conceptual payoff. |
If the statement passes only the managerial cut, it belongs in a marketing outlet other than JCR or needs reframing around consumer understanding. If it passes only the theory cut, add the human consumption stakes that make the contribution legible to the full JCR readership.
【Move】advance / deepen / repudiate → target theory
【Contribution sentence】one line for intro and discussion
【Base-discipline implications】psych / anthro-soc / econ
【Consumer Relevance & Contribution Statement】≤300 words, distinct from abstract: drafted?
【Interdisciplinary legibility】pass / fix
【Next step】jcr-tables-figures or jcr-writing-style
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jcr-skillsGuides the sharpening of a one-sentence contribution for Journal of Consumer Psychology manuscripts, ensuring the novelty reads as a psychological mechanism rather than an effect. Useful when reviewers say the finding is incremental.
Builds the conceptual core of a JCR manuscript: psychological process & hypotheses for experiments papers, or interpretive theorization for CCT papers. Does not run studies.
Frames results into a JMR contribution statement by addressing both substantive insight and methodological credibility. Use when discussion lacks clear contribution.