jcp-workflow

JCP Workflow Router (jcp-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It tells you **which jcp- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) — the official journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology (SCP), Division 23 of the American Psychological Association, published by Wiley (it moved from Elsevier; the resources/official-source-map.md still names the old publisher — 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). JCP is the field's flagship for theory-driven, mostly experimental research on consumer judgment, decision-making, affect, motivation, identity, and persuasion. The contribution that gets a paper in is a novel psychological PROCESS — not a new effect, not a new context. A multi-study package that documents an effect, mediates it, and shows theory-predicted moderation is the modal accepted paper.

Operational tells that you are at JCP and not a sibling: the bar is a psychological mechanism (mediation/moderation-of-process), not theory-of-the-firm or strategy (that is JM), not interpretive/CCT meaning-making (that is JCR), and not a single flashy effect with no audience-specific implication (that is closer to Psychological Science). JCP runs double-blind review (待核实 — confirm on the Wiley author page), formats in APA Style (7th), and takes four manuscript types: Research Article (≤50 double-spaced pages incl. everything), Research Report (<4,000 words excl. abstract/refs/tables/figures), Conceptual Review, and Research Dialogue.

When to trigger

• The user asks "what should I do next?" on a consumer-psychology manuscript
• A draft has an effect but no process story, and the bottleneck is unclear
• Work is ping-ponging between theory, study design, mediation analysis, and the response letter
• A JCP decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
• The team is comparing JCP with JCR, JM/JMR, Marketing Science, or Psychological Science

Routing table

| Current symptom | Next skill |

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

| Phenomenon may be too applied / not process-focused / wrong outlet | jcp-topic-selection |

| There is an effect but no psychological mechanism / hypotheses are "A→B" | jcp-theory-development |

| Contribution vs. JCR / JMR / Psych Science is fuzzy or oversold | jcp-literature-positioning |

| Experimental design has confounds, weak manipulations, or no power plan | jcp-methods |

| Mediation/moderation analysis or measurement of the process needs work | jcp-data-analysis |

| The "what's new about the PROCESS" one-liner is not sharp | jcp-contribution-framing |

| Means tables / mediation figures are cluttered or asterisk-driven | jcp-tables-figures |

| Intro frames an effect not a mechanism; prose buries the contribution | jcp-writing-style |

| Ready to submit via ScholarOne; need a preflight + open-science package | jcp-submission |

| Want to understand AE/reviewer timeline, desk-reject odds, R&R norms | jcp-review-process |

| Received an R&R; need a response-letter and new-studies strategy | jcp-rebuttal |

Default order

jcp-workflow → jcp-topic-selection → jcp-theory-development → jcp-literature-positioning → jcp-methods → jcp-data-analysis → jcp-contribution-framing → jcp-tables-figures → jcp-writing-style → jcp-submission → jcp-review-process → jcp-rebuttal

> jcp-writing-style is a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before the process is theorized and the mediation/moderation evidence is stable. At JCP the intro must promise a mechanism, so it cannot settle until jcp-data-analysis has confirmed what the process evidence supports.

Routing by paper archetype

JCP papers cluster into a few shapes, and the binding constraint differs by shape. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.

| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |

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

| New effect, no mechanism yet | naming and theorizing the process | jcp-theory-development |

| Robust effect, weak process evidence | manipulated mediator / moderation-of-process design | jcp-methods → jcp-data-analysis |

| Process clear, sibling overlap (looks like JCR/Psych Sci) | staking the consumer-psychology contribution | jcp-literature-positioning |

| Short, clean single-mechanism finding | fit to the Research Report (<4,000 word) format | jcp-topic-selection → jcp-submission |

| Confirmatory theory test, want pre-result review | Registered Report route (待核实) | jcp-methods |

Worked routing example (illustrative)

A user says: "My three studies show that scarcity cues increase impulse purchases, but a reviewer wrote 'this is an effect in search of a process — why does scarcity do this?'" That is the single most common JCP pushback: a documented effect with no mechanism. Route to jcp-theory-development to name the mediator (e.g., scarcity → perceived competition → arousal → impulse), then to jcp-methods to add a study that manipulates the proposed mediator or shows the effect dies when the process is blocked, then to jcp-data-analysis to run the mediation/moderated-mediation properly. Only once the process number is stable do you return to jcp-contribution-framing and jcp-rebuttal.

Anti-patterns

• Treating JCP like JCR (it has no interpretive/CCT tradition — JCP is experimental-process)
• Treating JCP like JM/JMR (strategy/firm questions belong there, not here)
• Routing a single-effect paper straight to jcp-writing-style while the mechanism is still missing
• Polishing exhibits before the mediation/moderation evidence settles
• Quoting publisher/process facts from the stale source map without re-checking (it says Elsevier; JCP is now Wiley)

Output format

【Target】Journal of Consumer Psychology
【Archetype】new-effect / weak-process / sibling-overlap / research-report / registered-report
【Current bottleneck】fit / mechanism / positioning / design / process-evidence / exhibits / style / submission / revision
【Next skill】<one jcp-* skill>
【Reason】why this step is the binding constraint
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 待核实