jmcb-literature-positioning

• SKILL.mdcore · 9,318 bytes

# Literature Positioning (jmcb-literature-positioning)

## When to trigger

- The contribution paragraph reads as "we add bank-level data to a known result" without a sharp delta
- A referee or coauthor cannot tell what JMCB readers learn that they did not already know
- The paper sits between two literatures (e.g., monetary transmission and banking) and cites neither's frontier well
- You are unsure whether the closest prior work is at JMCB, JME, AEJ:Macro, RED, or JBF

## The JMCB positioning bar

JMCB referees are monetary/banking specialists who know the canonical mechanisms cold — the bank lending channel (Bernanke–Blinder, Kashyap–Stein), the financial accelerator (Bernanke–Gertler–Gilchrist), high-frequency monetary identification (Kuttner; Gertler–Karadi; Nakamura–Steinsson), the deposits channel (Drechsler–Savov–Schnabl), and the information effect (Jarociński–Karadi). Positioning here is not a literature dump; it is a **precise statement of which mechanism you sharpen, overturn, or measure**, and why a money/credit/banking audience should care. The contribution must survive the question "what would the field believe differently after reading this?"

This bar is sharper than at a general-interest journal because the audience is specialized: a referee already knows the channel and the closest five papers, so a vague "we contribute to the literature on X" lands as filler. The contribution has to be stated as a *position relative to named work* — what you confirm in a new setting, what you overturn, what you measure that was previously only assumed.