By name: jf-literature-positioning description: Use when the introduction and related-work sections of a The Journal of Finance (JF) manuscript fail to state a crisp marginal contribution against the finance literature. Positions the paper; it does not survey it.
Literature Positioning & Contribution (jf-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The related-work section is a chronological list ("X (2015) finds… Y (2018) finds…")
- A reader cannot tell in one paragraph what is new relative to the closest papers
- The intro cites broadly but never names the 3–5 papers it actually builds on / departs from
- A referee is likely to say "this is already in [well-known paper]"
JF norm: position, do not survey
JF introductions are short and lead with the question and finding. The literature is woven into the contribution paragraph(s), not parked in a standalone "Literature Review" chapter. A general-interest AFA reader should leave the introduction knowing the question, the answer, the magnitude, and exactly how it differs from the closest work.
Engage JF's own canon
JF has published much of finance's foundational work; reviewers expect you to engage the right anchors and attribute to the correct top-3 journal:
- Sharpe (1964) CAPM — JF.
- Jensen (1968) mutual-fund performance — JF.
- Fama & French (1992), "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns" — JF.
- Jegadeesh & Titman (1993), momentum — JF.
- Carhart (1997), four-factor mutual-fund persistence — JF.
- Caution: the Fama–French three-factor model (1993) is in JFE, not JF — cite it to JFE. Mis-attributing canon to the wrong top-3 journal signals carelessness to JF editors.
Contribution-paragraph template
"We contribute to the literature on [strand 1] ([Anchor1], [Anchor2]). Those papers establish [X]; we show [the new thing], using [the new variation / data / test]. We also speak to [strand 2] … by [the second contribution]."
Rules: name the closest papers, not a dump; for each strand state prior result and your specific delta; classify the contribution as a new fact, new mechanism/identification, or new method.
Contribution-type decision table
Editors and AEs read the contribution paragraph to classify what is new. Force the paper into one primary type — claiming all three reads as none:
| Contribution type | What you must show | The attack to pre-empt |
|---|---|---|
| New fact | A robust regularity not previously documented | "This is already in [closest paper]" |
| New mechanism / identification | A clean shock or instrument isolating why | "Correlation, not causation" / "weak design" |
| New method | A genuinely new estimator or test, not a relabel | "This is a standard estimator on new data" |
State the type explicitly; the editor uses it to judge whether the step over the closest work is flagship-sized.
Worked vignette — positioning against the canon
Illustrative. A paper finds a supply-chain-concentration return premium. The weak version: "Many papers study the cross-section; we add a predictor." The JF version names the bar (Fama & French 1992, JF; the factor-zoo literature, Harvey, Liu & Zhu, JF), names the closest paper ([X, recent JF] prices customer risk), and states the delta: we isolate supplier concentration, show it survives their controls (a new fact) and concentrates where arbitrage is costly (a mechanism). FF 1992 cites to JF, the three-factor model to JFE — mis-routing canon reads as carelessness to JF editors.
Referee-pushback patterns and the JF-specific fix
| Pushback you will hear | JF-specific fix |
|---|---|
| "This is already in [well-known paper]" | Name it, state its result, give your precise delta |
| "You ignore the recent JF paper on this" | Add it — editors notice omissions of their own journal |
Calibration anchors
- JF introductions position, not survey — literature woven into the contribution paragraph, not a standalone review. The nearest rivals shift; confirm against recent issues.
Checklist
- Contribution paragraph names the closest 3–5 papers, not 30
- For each strand: prior result + your specific delta
- Contribution classified: new fact vs. mechanism vs. method
- Nearest rival pre-empted (cited and distinguished)
- Foundational JF/JFE references present and attributed to the correct journal (e.g., FF 1992 = JF; FF three-factor 1993 = JFE)
- The multiple-testing critique in cross-sectional asset pricing (Harvey, Liu & Zhu) cited where relevant
- Recent JF papers on the exact topic cited (editors notice omissions of their own journal)
Anti-patterns
- A chronological list with no synthesis or delta
- Citing a survey instead of the primary papers a referee has in mind
- Mis-attributing canon (e.g., the FF three-factor model) to JF instead of JFE
- "To the best of our knowledge…" without checking recent JF issues
- Claiming a "new method" when it is a standard estimator on new data
Output format
【Primary strand / anchors】...
【Marginal contribution (1 sentence)】...
【Contribution type】new fact / new mechanism / new method
【Nearest rival pre-empted?】yes / no — [paper]
【Canon attributed to correct journal?】yes / no
【Next step】jf-identification (corporate/empirical) or jf-empirical-design (asset pricing)