Jcf Contribution Framing

---
name: jcf-contribution-framing
description: Use when sharpening the stated contribution of a Journal of Corporate Finance (JCF) manuscript — turning a result into a crisp "what is new and why it matters to corporate finance" claim that survives the editor's desk screen. It frames the pitch (abstract, intro, cover letter); it does not run analysis.
---

# Contribution Framing (jcf-contribution-framing)

## When to trigger

- Writing the abstract's contribution sentence and the introduction's "we show / we contribute" arc
- Drafting the cover-letter pitch the handling editor reads first
- Deciding whether the contribution is strong enough to clear active desk-rejection

## What a JCF contribution looks like

JCF runs an **active desk-rejection policy**: the editors state that a non-trivial fraction of papers are rejected without full review. The contribution must be legible in the abstract and first page. A strong JCF contribution typically:

- Identifies a **corporate-finance friction or decision** (structure, governance, payout, contracting, M&A, international) and a **clean answer** to a sharp question.
- States **what is new** relative to the closest 2–3 papers — a new mechanism, a new identification, new data, or a decisive test.
- Says **why it matters** — for theory, for managers/investors, or for policy — without over-claiming.

## Framing checklist

- [ ] One-sentence contribution that names the question, the design, and the result
- [ ] The novelty is **incremental-but-clear**, not "first ever" hyperbole
- [ ] Magnitude (not just sign/significance) is in the headline claim
- [ ] Scope of the claim **matches the design** (no causal language an OLS cannot bear)
- [ ] The "so what" is explicit for at least one audience

## Cover-letter pitch (Editorial Manager)

A tight paragraph: the question, the identification, the headline result with a number, and the fit to JCF's corporate-finance remit. Avoid a multi-page defensive letter — the editor is screening fast.

## Anti-patterns

- "First paper to study X" claims a referee can falsify in one search.
- A contribution that restates the regression instead of the idea.
- Over-claiming causality beyond what the design supports (see jcf-identification-strategy).
- Burying the contribution under literature review.

## Output

```
【Contribution】<one sentence: question + design + result>
【Novelty】<vs. 2–3 closest>  【So what】<audience + payoff>
【Over-claim risk】[low/med/high] + fix
```