Literature Positioning (misq-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• Your front end reads as "no one has studied X" (gap-spotting) rather than joining a conversation
• A reviewer says "this belongs in [a reference discipline] journal" or "the IS contribution is unclear"
• You cite mostly non-IS work and little of the canonical IS literature
• You cannot articulate what an IS scholar — versus a management, economics, or CS scholar — gains

Join an IS conversation, do not just find a gap

MISQ rewards problematization over gap-spotting: surface and challenge an assumption in the existing IS literature, then show why resolving it matters. State explicitly which IS conversation you join (e.g., technology adoption and use, IT value and productivity, digital platforms and markets, IS security and privacy, IS development and design, the future of work). Cite the canonical anchors of that conversation, not just recent adjacent papers.

Keep the IT artifact central

The positioning must make clear the IT artifact is theorized, not incidental. If your argument would survive deleting the technology, an editor will read it as a management, economics, or CS paper wearing IS clothing. Show how the properties of the artifact (its affordances, design, data, or market structure) drive the phenomenon.

Position against adjacent venues, not just within MISQ

(Confirm current scopes; venue emphases shift — treat boundaries as 待核实.)

Position against the reference disciplines

Acknowledge the parent theory (from management, economics, psychology, or CS) you borrow, then show the IS twist: what changes when the phenomenon is mediated by an IT artifact? That twist is the contribution that makes it an IS paper.

Checklist

• The specific IS conversation is named, with canonical anchors cited
• Problematization (challenging an assumption) rather than bare gap-spotting
• The IT artifact is shown to be load-bearing in the argument
• Distinction from ISR/JMIS/JAIS and from the reference discipline is explicit
• The "IS twist" on borrowed theory is stated

Anti-patterns

• A long literature review that summarizes rather than positions.
• Citing only the last five years and missing the conversation's foundational work.
• "Understudied context" framing with no theorized role for the technology.

Positioning pass for MIS Quarterly

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the IS phenomenon, artifact/platform, theory mechanism, design or empirical warrant, and managerial implication; then test whether the manuscript addresses information-systems reviewers who expect strong IS theory, digital artifact or platform grounding, and evidence with organizational consequence.

• Primary move: Map incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, this manuscript's delta, and the sibling-venue omission a referee might notice.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against Information Systems Research for quantitative IS, Journal of Management Information Systems for applied systems, Management Science for broader OR/MS; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【IS conversation joined】...
【Problematized assumption】...
【IT artifact's central role】...
【Vs. adjacent venues / reference discipline】...
【Next step】misq-methods