jaar-topic-selection

Topic Selection & Reframing (jaar-topic-selection)

JAAR is widely considered the top general journal in religious studies, and it is **generalist by

mandate: an article must matter to scholars working on other traditions and with other methods**.

Roughly 90% of submissions are rejected, and a subfield-bound framing is a common early death.

Use this skill to choose and, above all, reframe the project so it clears the gate.

When to trigger

• Choosing among projects or framings for JAAR
• A reader said the piece is "only for specialists" in your tradition/area
• The editor returned a submission asking you to reframe its significance
• Deciding whether JAAR (vs. a specialist journal) is the right home

The JAAR fit test

A strong JAAR article usually clears all four:

1. Broad and fundamental interest. It changes how the study of religion understands something —

a category, a method, a comparative problem, a theoretical debate — not just how one tradition is

read. Name the scholars outside your area who should care.

1. It has a point. JAAR explicitly wants analysis with a thesis, not description or a survey. The

essay argues something contestable (see jaar-argument-development).

1. Method-conscious and reflexive. It is aware of how it studies religion and of the scholar's own

position; it is non-confessional (the academic study of religion, not theology-as-advocacy).

1. Right venue. If the contribution is genuinely only intelligible to specialists in one tradition,

a specialist journal may fit better — say why JAAR is right.

How to reframe a subfield project for JAAR

| Subfield project | Reframe toward the study of religion by… |

|------------------|-------------------------------------------|

| A reading of one text/tradition | drawing the general category, method, or comparative lesson it reveals |

| A historical case | showing what it teaches about religion, secularity, or method broadly |

| A philosophical/ethical argument | connecting it to how the field theorizes religion |

| An ethnographic study | extracting the portable conceptual or methodological contribution |

Anti-patterns

• "First study of X tradition's Y" as the whole contribution (specialist-only)
• A descriptive survey with no thesis (JAAR wants a "point")
• Confessional/advocacy framing rather than analytic study of religion
• Assuming the editor will send a subfield-only paper out for review (it gets returned to reframe)

Output format

【Topic】one sentence
【Broad significance】who outside your tradition/method cares, and why
【The point】the contestable thesis
【Reflexivity/method stance】how it studies religion; non-confessional?
【Venue】JAAR vs a specialist journal (why JAAR)
【Verdict】strong / needs reframing / better elsewhere
【Next】jaar-scholarly-positioning

JAAR-vs-specialist-journal decision grid

Before investing in a draft, decide whether the AAR/Oxford University Press flagship is the right home

or whether a specialist journal serves the work better. A wrong-venue submission usually returns with

"another journal suits this."

| If the contribution is… | Then… |

|-------------------------|-------|

| A category/method/comparative insight others can use | JAAR is a strong fit |

| Intelligible only to specialists in one tradition | A specialist journal likely fits better |

| A confession or advocacy for a tradition | Neither — reframe as analysis |

| A descriptive survey with no thesis | Not ready for a selective venue — find the point first |

| A field study with portable conceptual payoff | JAAR fits if the payoff is foregrounded |

Worked vignette: deciding fit for an ethnographic project

A scholar has rich fieldwork on healing rituals in one Pentecostal congregation. Run the fit test:

• Broad and fundamental interest? As "a study of Congregation X," no. Reframed around the

insider/outsider problem in studying charismatic practice, or the analytic of "healing" across

traditions, it clears the bar.

• Does it have a point? The contestable thesis: observed healing practice resists the

efficacy/placebo framing scholars import, demanding a different analytic — a claim, not a description.

• Reflexive and non-confessional? The author states her position and keeps believers'

efficacy-claims as data, not premises (handing detail to jaar-theory-and-method).

• Verdict. Strong after reframing; as the congregation study, it bounces at Gate 1.

Topic-fit pushback → the fix

• "First study of X's Y" is the whole pitch → surface the portable lesson for the field.
• "Only for specialists" → reframe toward a category, method, or comparison.
• "Reads as advocacy" → re-pitch as analytic study of religion.

Hedged calibration: the "broad and fundamental interest" bar and the reframing return are stated JAAR

expectations, but selectivity figures and the precise scope language move over time — confirm the

current wording on the journal's submission guidelines before treating any threshold as fixed.

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — research tools for the study of religion
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — JAAR scope and the reframing requirement