jfm-topic-selection

Topic Selection (jfm-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• The paper studies trading, liquidity, prices, or order flow, and you must decide JFM vs. JF / JFE / RFS / JFQA
• A coauthor says "we have liquidity in the regressions" but the mechanism is really a corporate-finance or macro story
• The dataset is microstructure-grade (TAQ, LOBSTER, proprietary order book) but the question may be too broad to interest microstructure referees
• A referee elsewhere wrote "this is not really a markets paper"
• You need to decide if a structural/macro asset-pricing result has a sharp microstructure cut worth carving out for JFM

The JFM fit test

JFM publishes research on how securities are traded and priced — the design and analysis of trading mechanisms, optimal order placement, the role of information in markets, liquidity, and price discovery. The clean test is the mechanism question: Does the paper's central economic force live inside the trading process? If you can restate the contribution without referencing spreads, depth, order flow, market design, information asymmetry among traders, or price formation, it is probably not a JFM paper.

The question is really about…	Microstructure cut that makes it JFM	If no such cut
A firm event (M&A, earnings, issuance)	How information enters prices via trading (PIN/VPIN, price impact, adverse selection)	→ corporate finance / JF / JFE
A cross-sectional return premium	Whether it is a liquidity/illiquidity premium with a trading mechanism	→ broad asset pricing / RFS / JFQA
A regulation	Its effect on market quality (spreads, depth, fragmentation, price discovery)	→ law-econ / banking
Institutional behavior	Their order-submission / execution / trading footprint	→ institutions / JF
Crypto / new venues	The market microstructure of the venue (AMMs, latency, fragmentation)	→ fintech generalist

Where JFM is the better home than its siblings

• The contribution is a measurement or mechanism advance in liquidity/price impact/discovery rather than a new risk factor or governance result.
• The paper exploits an exogenous market-structure change (tick-size pilot, decimalization, circuit breakers, venue entry/exit, MiFID/Reg NMS rules) as the identifying variation.
• It is specialist-deep: high institutional fidelity to one market's plumbing, where JF/RFS would want broader generality but JFM rewards the depth.
• A clean microstructure theory paper (Kyle, Glosten-Milgrom, Easley-O'Hara lineage) with testable implications, even if the empirics are modest.

Worked triage (illustrative)

A draft studies how passive-fund ownership affects stock returns. Pitched as-is, it is a broad asset-pricing / institutions paper for JF or RFS, not JFM. The microstructure cut that would make it JFM: show that index-inclusion forced trading changes the stock's price-impact function and quoted depth around the rebalance, and that the return effect operates through this liquidity channel. Now the contribution lives in the trading process — measured in bps of impact and shares of depth — and the rebalance is an exogenous order-flow shock. Same data, repositioned around the mechanism, becomes a JFM paper. If no such trading-process channel can be isolated, route it back to a broad-finance venue rather than thinning it into a weak JFM fit.

Scoping by asset class

JFM publishes across equities, options, fixed income (Treasuries, corporate bonds), FX, and increasingly crypto/AMMs — but the market-structure detail must be right for that asset. An equity-microstructure framing (continuous limit-order book, Lee-Ready) does not transfer unmodified to OTC corporate bonds (dealer-intermediated, TRACE) or to FX (decentralized, no consolidated tape). Name the actual market architecture; a referee who trades that market will spot a borrowed framing instantly.

Theory vs. empirics: both have a JFM home, on different terms

JFM publishes microstructure theory (a model in the Kyle / Glosten-Milgrom / Easley-O'Hara lineage) as well as empirics, but the fit test differs. A theory paper must yield testable predictions about observable market quantities — spreads, depth, price impact, the speed of price discovery — not just an elegant equilibrium. An empirical paper must measure those quantities credibly and connect them to a mechanism. A paper that is pure theory with no market-observable implication, or pure data-mining with no mechanism, fails the fit test from opposite directions. When in doubt, ask: what would a trader or an exchange learn from this about how the market works?

Quick desk-reject self-screen

Before committing to JFM, run the three fastest desk-reject filters: (1) Mechanism — strip the microstructure words; if the paper still stands, it is not JFM. (2) Granularity — does the data resolution match the claim (intraday/order-book for an impact or discovery claim, not daily aggregates)? (3) Specialist depth — would a microstructure referee learn something new about market plumbing, or only confirm a broad-finance prior? Failing any of the three means reframe-for-JFM or reroute — do not submit and hope.

Checklist

• The one-sentence claim names a trading-process object (spread, depth, impact, order flow, discovery, venue, information asymmetry)
• The paper survives the mechanism test: it cannot be restated without microstructure vocabulary
• You can state in one line why this is JFM and not JF/JFE/RFS (specialist depth or microstructure mechanism, not broad generality)
• The market and instruments are named precisely (equities/options/Treasuries/FX/crypto; lit vs. dark; venue)
• The data granularity matches the claim (quote/trade-level for impact claims, not daily aggregates)
• Process facts cited are in resources/official-source-map.md or marked 待核实

Sizing the contribution to JFM, not above or below it

JFM is a strong field journal, not a top-3 generalist, and the contribution should be sized accordingly. A result big and broad enough to reshape how all of finance thinks may belong at JF/RFS and would be under-placed at JFM; a result that merely re-confirms a known microstructure fact in one more sample is too thin. The JFM sweet spot is a genuine advance in understanding a trading-process mechanism — a new measure, a new identifying market-structure shock, a tested theoretical prediction, or the first careful study of a new venue/asset's microstructure — that a specialist audience will find both novel and credible. Calibrate the framing to that level: do not oversell a field contribution as a paradigm shift, and do not undersell a real mechanism advance as a minor robustness note.

Common mis-targets and where they actually go

• Return-predictability with intraday data but no trading mechanism → broad asset pricing (RFS/JFQA).
• Bank or intermediary balance-sheet effects on lending → banking/corporate (JF/JFE).
• A pure econometric estimator with a finance illustration → an econometrics or quant-finance journal.
• Investor-behavior survey with no market-quality outcome → behavioral finance generalist.

If the paper keeps drifting toward one of these, that is the signal to reroute rather than force a thin JFM framing.

Anti-patterns

• "Liquidity as a control variable" dressed up as a microstructure contribution
• Pitching a broad return-predictability result to JFM because it happens to use intraday data
• Claiming venue/market-design relevance without describing the actual matching/auction/priority rules
• Assuming a top-3-finance reject "steps down" cleanly to JFM — JFM wants microstructure depth the broad paper may lack
• Inventing an exemplar JFM paper instead of verifying it in the official archive

Output format

【Journal】Journal of Financial Markets (JFM)
【Skill】jfm-topic-selection
【Mechanism test】passes / fails — the trading-process object is: <…>
【Verdict】fit / reframe-for-JFM / reroute to JF·JFE·RFS·JFQA
【Why JFM not siblings】<specialist depth or microstructure mechanism>
【Data granularity】matches the claim? <quote/trade/order-book vs. daily>
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next skill】jfm-literature-positioning