jm-workflow

Journal of Marketing Workflow (jm-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you **which jm- skill to use right now* for your Journal of Marketing manuscript.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JM — the American Marketing Association's (AMA) premier general-audience marketing journal, published by SAGE on the AMA's behalf. JM's mission is to develop and disseminate knowledge about real-world marketing questions useful to scholars, educators, managers, policy makers, consumers, and other societal stakeholders. Its gatekeeping criterion is publishing "the most impactful, thought-leading substantive research in the marketing discipline." The non-negotiable bar: a substantive insight into an important marketing question, with genuine managerial, policy, or societal relevance — not methodological novelty for its own sake. JM is methodologically "big tent" (experiments, field studies, surveys, interviews, observational, and secondary data) and actively promotes empirics-first research grounded in real-world phenomena.

> Editorial team: Editor in Chief Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (UNC Kenan-Flagler); Coeditors Marc Fischer (Cologne), Kelly L. Haws (Vanderbilt), Maura L. Scott (Arizona State), Rebecca J. Slotegraaf (Indiana). Verify the live masthead on the AMA editorial-leadership page before naming conflicts or suggesting opposed reviewers.

When to trigger

• "What should I do next?" with a half-built JM manuscript
• You have results but the managerial/societal "so what" is thin
• A reviewer/editor questions whether the contribution is substantive or merely a new-context replication
• You received a JM decision letter (R&R or reject) and need to switch into response mode
• You keep bouncing between phenomenon, theory, method, and writing without a plan

Routing table

| Current symptom | Next skill |

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

| Idea is vague; not sure it is substantive or JM-fit (vs. JMR / Mktg Sci) | jm-topic-selection |

| Phenomenon is real but the conceptual logic is underdeveloped | jm-theory-development |

| Front end reads as gap-spotting; substantive conversation not engaged | jm-literature-positioning |

| Design may not match the question (causality, field realism, level) | jm-methods |

| Have data; unsure about identification, exact-statistic reporting, replication | jm-data-analysis |

| Results exist but managerial/policy/societal relevance is thin | jm-contribution-framing |

| Tables/figures cluttered or lack a managerial takeaway | jm-tables-figures |

| Prose buries the substantive argument; off AMA house style | jm-writing-style |

| Ready to submit; need the ScholarOne (Sage Track) preflight | jm-submission |

| Want to understand how JM double-anonymized review works | jm-review-process |

| Received an R&R; need to plan and draft the response | jm-rebuttal |

Default order

1. jm-topic-selection — lock a substantive, managerially relevant question with JM fit
2. jm-theory-development — build conceptual logic grounded in the real-world phenomenon
3. jm-literature-positioning — engage the substantive conversation; avoid new-context incrementalism
4. jm-methods — match design (experiment / field / survey / secondary / qualitative) to the question
5. jm-data-analysis — identification, exact p-values/SEs/effect sizes, JM Dataverse replication
6. jm-contribution-framing — turn results into a substantive + managerial/policy/societal contribution
7. jm-tables-figures — finalize exhibits with managerial takeaways in AMA style
8. jm-writing-style — full-manuscript prose polish (front-loaded substantive argument)
9. jm-submission — ScholarOne (Sage Track) preflight (anonymization, 50-page format, files)
10. jm-review-process — set expectations for double-anonymized, multi-round review
11. jm-rebuttal — after an R&R, plan revisions then draft the response letter

> jm-tables-figures and jm-writing-style are late-stage polish. Do not invoke them while the substantive contribution or identification is still unsettled.

Decision shortcuts

• "I have a finding but no managerial story" → jm-topic-selection then jm-contribution-framing
• "My intro says 'no one has studied X in this context'" → jm-literature-positioning
• "Reviewer says it's a new-context replication" → jm-contribution-framing (substantive novelty)
• "My paper is mostly a clever model" → reconsider fit (Marketing Science / JMR), then jm-topic-selection
• "I reported p < .05" → jm-data-analysis (exact p-values, SEs, effect sizes)
• "Conditional acceptance — what do I deposit?" → jm-submission / jm-data-analysis (JM Dataverse packet)
• "Got an R&R" → jm-review-process then jm-rebuttal

Stage snapshot template

Fill this in at the start of each working session to pick the next jm-* route; keep it alongside the manuscript so coauthors see the same state.

JM MANUSCRIPT ROUTING SNAPSHOT
==============================
Manuscript : [working title]
Target     : Journal of Marketing (AMA/SAGE) — ScholarOne: mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ama_jm
Date       : [YYYY-MM-DD]

GATE 0 — VENUE FIT (all three or reroute)
[ ] Substantive marketing question, not a methods/model showcase -> else JMR / Marketing Science
[ ] Managerial / policy / societal relevance articulable         -> else jm-topic-selection
[ ] Not a new-context replication of known findings              -> else jm-literature-positioning

STAGE LADDER (mark: [ ] todo  [~] in progress  [x] done)
[ ] 1.  Question locked (substantive + decision maker named)          jm-topic-selection
[ ] 2.  Conceptual logic grounded in the real-world phenomenon        jm-theory-development
[ ] 3.  Conversation joined; new-context defense drafted              jm-literature-positioning
[ ] 4.  Design matched to question (big tent: exp/field/survey/...)   jm-methods
[ ] 5.  Identification + exact p-values, SEs, effect sizes            jm-data-analysis
[ ] 6.  Substantive + managerial contribution sentences written       jm-contribution-framing
[ ] 7.  Exhibits carry managerial takeaways                           jm-tables-figures
[ ] 8.  Prose front-loads the substantive argument (AMA style)        jm-writing-style
[ ] 9.  Preflight passed (anonymization, 50-page format, files)       jm-submission
[ ] 10. Under double-anonymized review; expectations set              jm-review-process
[ ] 11. R&R: revisions planned and made, then response drafted        jm-rebuttal

SUBMISSION PREFLIGHT SUMMARY (full detail lives in jm-submission)
[ ] Anonymized manuscript — no author/institution identifiers
[ ] Separate title page + Data Availability Statement
[ ] Main document <= 50 pages inclusive; web appendices excluded
[ ] Web Appendix file(s) prepared for supplementary results
[ ] Exact statistics reported (actual p-values, SEs, effect sizes)
[ ] JM Dataverse replication packet planned for conditional acceptance
[ ] Cover letter states fit + substantive + managerial contribution

CURRENT BLOCKER
- Symptom    : [one line — what is stuck]
- Routed to  : jm-[skill]
- Exit test  : [what "done" looks like before the next snapshot]

NEXT ROUTE: jm-[skill]

Rules of use: never mark stages 7–8 in progress while stages 1–6 have an open blocker (they are late-stage polish); if Gate 0 fails twice in a row, stop and reconsider the venue rather than iterating the manuscript.

Difference vs. JMR / Marketing Science / JCR stacks

• JM: substantive insight into real-world marketing questions with managerial/policy/societal relevance; "big tent" empirics-first; AMA/SAGE; 50-page inclusive limit; ScholarOne at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ama_jm.
• JMR (AMA/SAGE sister journal): methods-forward empirical rigor — measurement, models, methods; route quant-methods-driven work here.
• Marketing Science (INFORMS): analytical, game-theoretic, and structural modeling — route modeling-for-its-own-sake here.
• JCR (Oxford UP / ACR): interdisciplinary consumer-behavior theory.

If your paper centers on a modeling/methods advance rather than a substantive marketing insight, JM is the wrong venue.

Anti-patterns

• Do not skip jm-contribution-framing — JM rejects work with no managerial/societal relevance.
• Do not dress up a new-context replication as a contribution.
• Do not let complex analysis substitute for an important, substantive question.
• Do not let jm-rebuttal draft a response letter before the manuscript is actually revised.