Sf Literature Positioning

---
name: sf-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning a Social Forces (SF) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution to a general social-science audience. Because SF caps the manuscript at 10,000 words including the reference list, positioning must be sharp and economical. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.
---

# Literature Positioning (sf-literature-positioning)

Social Forces reaches a **general social-science** readership, so positioning has two jobs: convince a
specialist you know the frontier, and convince a non-specialist the debate matters. And because the
**10,000-word cap counts the reference list**, you cannot bury the contribution under a citation pile —
positioning at SF is necessarily lean.

## When to trigger

- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
- A reviewer said you "missed obvious work" or "don't engage the debate"
- Your subfield literature is solid but the paper doesn't connect to broader social science
- You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers — economically

## How SF wants the literature engaged

1. **Engage a debate, not a bibliography.** Identify the live disagreement or open question your paper
   speaks to; cite the works that *define* it. Long reference lists cost you words you cannot spare.
2. **Two audiences at once.** Satisfy the specialist (you know the frontier) and the generalist (why
   it matters for understanding social organization, institutions, or change).
3. **Name the gap precisely.** Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured,
   under-theorized, or untested, and why resolving it advances social science.
4. **Position the contribution as a move in the debate.** "Prior work argues X via mechanism M; we show
   M is conditional on C / is better explained by M′ / does not survive a sharper test."
5. **Pre-empt the strongest rival.** SF reviewers prize rigor; name the leading alternative account and
   say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to `sf-research-design`).

## Cite economically (the cap counts references)

| Tempting habit | Leaner SF move |
|----------------|----------------|
| Five citations to make one point | one or two definitive cites |
| A paragraph cataloguing every prior study | a sentence naming the debate + its anchors |
| Re-citing the same work in every section | cite once where it does the most work |
| A "gap" built from many small omissions | one precise, consequential gap |

## Anti-patterns

- A "literature dump" with no organizing debate (and a reference list that eats the word budget)
- Engaging only your own subfield when SF readers span the social sciences
- Strawmanning prior work, or hiding the closest competitor paper
- Self-citation that breaks anonymity (SF is double-anonymized — see `sf-submission`)
- "First to study" claims when the contribution is incremental

## Output format

```
【Debate】the live disagreement / open question
【Key works】the 3-5 that define it (cite economically)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / untested
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Reference budget】citation load consistent with a 10,000-word (incl. refs) cap? [Y/N]
【Next】sf-theory-building
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SF general audience, scope, and the reference-inclusive word cap