Misq Literature Positioning

---
name: misq-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning a MIS Quarterly manuscript inside the right information-systems conversation — engaging canonical IS work, showing the IT artifact is central, and distinguishing the paper from adjacent IS venues (ISR, JMIS, JAIS) and from the parent reference disciplines (management, economics, computer science).
---

# Literature Positioning (misq-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- Your front end reads as "no one has studied X" (gap-spotting) rather than joining a conversation
- A reviewer says "this belongs in [a reference discipline] journal" or "the IS contribution is unclear"
- You cite mostly non-IS work and little of the canonical IS literature
- You cannot articulate what an IS scholar — versus a management, economics, or CS scholar — gains

## Join an IS conversation, do not just find a gap

MISQ rewards problematization over gap-spotting: surface and challenge an assumption in the existing IS literature, then show why resolving it matters. State explicitly *which* IS conversation you join (e.g., technology adoption and use, IT value and productivity, digital platforms and markets, IS security and privacy, IS development and design, the future of work). Cite the canonical anchors of that conversation, not just recent adjacent papers.

## Keep the IT artifact central

The positioning must make clear the IT artifact is theorized, not incidental. If your argument would survive deleting the technology, an editor will read it as a management, economics, or CS paper wearing IS clothing. Show how the properties of the artifact (its affordances, design, data, or market structure) drive the phenomenon.

## Position against adjacent venues, not just within MISQ

| Venue | What distinguishes it | When it is the better target |
|-------|------------------------|------------------------------|
| **MISQ** | Broad IS flagship; rigorous theory across behavioral, design-science, economics, organizational | A general, foundational IS contribution |
| **ISR** | IS flagship with a strong quantitative/analytical and behavioral emphasis | Tightly scoped quantitative/analytical IS work |
| **JMIS** | Management of IS, often technical/economic | Management-of-IT and technical-economic papers |
| **JAIS** | AIS flagship, theory-forward, methodologically diverse | Theory-heavy or methodologically novel IS work |

(Confirm current scopes; venue emphases shift — treat boundaries as 待核实.)

## Position against the reference disciplines

Acknowledge the parent theory (from management, economics, psychology, or CS) you borrow, then show the *IS twist*: what changes when the phenomenon is mediated by an IT artifact? That twist is the contribution that makes it an IS paper.

## Checklist

- [ ] The specific IS conversation is named, with canonical anchors cited
- [ ] Problematization (challenging an assumption) rather than bare gap-spotting
- [ ] The IT artifact is shown to be load-bearing in the argument
- [ ] Distinction from ISR/JMIS/JAIS and from the reference discipline is explicit
- [ ] The "IS twist" on borrowed theory is stated

## Anti-patterns

- A long literature review that summarizes rather than positions.
- Citing only the last five years and missing the conversation's foundational work.
- "Understudied context" framing with no theorized role for the technology.

## Output format

```
【IS conversation joined】...
【Problematized assumption】...
【IT artifact's central role】...
【Vs. adjacent venues / reference discipline】...
【Next step】misq-methods
```