Jf Literature Positioning

---
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**.

## 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)
```