Journal of marketing research
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill journal-of-marketing-researchAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when targeting Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) or deciding whether a marketing manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
SKILL.md
5.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Journal of Marketing Research (journal-of-marketing-research)
Journal positioning
JMR is an American Marketing Association FT50 journal and the field's standard-bearer for methodological and substantive rigor. It publishes work that advances marketing knowledge through strong research design — quantitative modeling, measurement, and behavioral experiments — and is unusually demanding about the methods bar. JMR is the home for both the modeling/quantitative and the behavioral wings of marketing, judged on whether the design is sound and the substantive insight is real. Readership is the research-active marketing professoriate.
This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the AMA / SAGE site and the submission system.
When to trigger
- The author names JMR (or the AMA / FT50 rigorous-methods marketing tier) as the venue.
- A quantitative-modeling, measurement, or behavioral-experiment marketing paper needs positioning for a venue that prizes design rigor.
- A substantive paper whose strength is its identification, measurement, or experimental control needs framing for the right audience.
- The author needs JMR's desk-reject risks and a credible JM / Marketing Science / JCR / JCP alternative list.
Scope & topic fit
- Quantitative marketing: choice models, econometrics of marketing, pricing, advertising response, customer analytics, measurement and psychometrics.
- Behavioral marketing: consumer judgment and decision-making tested with rigorous lab/field experiments and process evidence.
- Methodology papers that give marketing researchers a better tool (estimation, measurement, experimental design) with a marketing payoff.
- Substantive findings that depend on, and showcase, a strong research design.
Method & evidence bar
- Design rigor is the defining filter: identification, internal/external validity, measurement validity, and statistical-inference correctness are scrutinized hard.
- Behavioral submissions need multi-study designs with mediation/moderation evidence and ruled-out alternatives; single-study, single-effect papers rarely clear the bar.
- Modeling submissions need correct estimation, identification of structural parameters, and robustness/out-of-sample checks.
- Replicability and transparency (data, code, materials, pre-registration where relevant) are taken seriously.
Structure & house style
- The front end states the substantive question and why the design is the right way to answer it; the contribution is design + insight, not significance.
- Behavioral papers report a study chain that builds from effect to process to boundary conditions; modeling papers foreground identification and model fit.
- JMR uses a structured/abstract format and an online/web appendix for additional studies, robustness, and technical detail.
- Writing keeps method detail rigorous but legible; the substantive takeaway is never buried under technique.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Journal of Marketing Research submission guidelines / manuscript preparation" and follow the current AMA/SAGE version.
- Re-check abstract format, word/length limits, anonymization, reference style, and the web-appendix / supplementary-materials requirement.
- Re-check current data/code/materials transparency, pre-registration, ethics/IRB, and AI-use disclosure policies.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence stating the substantive marketing insight and why the design is the right vehicle for it.
- The contribution is stated as design + insight, not as a p-value or a single effect.
- Behavioral work has multi-study process and boundary evidence; modeling work has identification and robustness.
- The introduction positions the paper against recent JMR / JM / Marketing Science work.
- Abstract, web appendix, materials, and transparency disclosures match the current JMR guide.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A single-study behavioral effect with no process evidence or ruled-out alternatives.
- A modeling paper with identification problems or no robustness/out-of-sample validation.
- A substantively thin paper that is "rigorous" but answers a question no one is asking.
- A method demonstration with no marketing payoff.
Re-routing decision
- Broad substantive/strategic contribution with managerial reach →
journal-of-marketing. - Heavy analytical/structural IO modeling →
marketing-science. - Consumer-behavior theory for an interdisciplinary audience →
journal-of-consumer-research; psychological-process consumer work →journal-of-consumer-psychology. - Strong but narrower marketing-strategy / B2B work →
journal-of-the-academy-of-marketing-science.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Journal of Marketing Research
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does the design rigor clear JMR's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <submission system / abstract / length / web appendix / pre-registration / transparency>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>