JF introductions are short and lead with the question and finding. The literature is woven into the contribution paragraph(s), not parked in a standalone "Literature Review" chapter. A general-interest AFA reader should leave the introduction knowing the question, the answer, the magnitude, and exactly how it differs from the closest work.
JF has published much of finance's foundational work; reviewers expect you to engage the right anchors and attribute to the correct top-3 journal:
"We contribute to the literature on [strand 1] ([Anchor1], [Anchor2]). Those papers establish [X]; we show [the new thing], using [the new variation / data / test]. We also speak to [strand 2] … by [the second contribution]."
Rules: name the closest papers, not a dump; for each strand state prior result and your specific delta; classify the contribution as a new fact, new mechanism/identification, or new method.
Editors and AEs read the contribution paragraph to classify what is new. Force the paper into one primary type — claiming all three reads as none:
| Contribution type | What you must show | The attack to pre-empt |
|---|---|---|
| New fact | A robust regularity not previously documented | "This is already in [closest paper]" |
| New mechanism / identification | A clean shock or instrument isolating why | "Correlation, not causation" / "weak design" |
| New method | A genuinely new estimator or test, not a relabel | "This is a standard estimator on new data" |
State the type explicitly; the editor uses it to judge whether the step over the closest work is flagship-sized.
Illustrative. A paper finds a supply-chain-concentration return premium. The weak version: "Many papers study the cross-section; we add a predictor." The JF version names the bar (Fama & French 1992, JF; the factor-zoo literature, Harvey, Liu & Zhu, JF), names the closest paper ([X, recent JF] prices customer risk), and states the delta: we isolate supplier concentration, show it survives their controls (a new fact) and concentrates where arbitrage is costly (a mechanism). FF 1992 cites to JF, the three-factor model to JFE — mis-routing canon reads as carelessness to JF editors.
| Pushback you will hear | JF-specific fix |
|---|---|
| "This is already in [well-known paper]" | Name it, state its result, give your precise delta |
| "You ignore the recent JF paper on this" | Add it — editors notice omissions of their own journal |
【Primary strand / anchors】...
【Marginal contribution (1 sentence)】...
【Contribution type】new fact / new mechanism / new method
【Nearest rival pre-empted?】yes / no — [paper]
【Canon attributed to correct journal?】yes / no
【Next step】jf-identification (corporate/empirical) or jf-empirical-design (asset pricing)