Literature Positioning (jbf-literature-positioning)

When to trigger

• The introduction lists papers but does not state the gap
• The paper risks being seen as "another setting" rather than a contribution
• You need to route citations across banking, finance, regulation, and adjacent economics literatures

Positioning logic

JBF referees expect the paper to know the finance frontier. Positioning should therefore compare the manuscript with the closest papers on question, mechanism, data, and design, not with a broad topical survey.

1. Identify the closest 5-8 papers and state what each establishes.
2. Separate literature families: banking/intermediation, corporate finance,

market microstructure/asset pricing, regulation, and method/design papers.

1. State the delta: new mechanism, better identification, new measurement,

broader setting, sharper policy implication, or theory-to-evidence bridge.

1. Explain why the delta matters for JBF readers: bank behavior, credit

allocation, market functioning, regulation, or investor outcomes.

1. Avoid novelty by omission: if a paper is close, cite it early and explain

the difference directly.

Standard contribution paragraph

This paper contributes to [literature] by showing [finding/mechanism] in
[setting]. Relative to [closest paper], which [what it does], we [new data/design/
mechanism] and show [increment]. This matters because [banking/finance implication].

Anti-patterns

• "To our knowledge" claims without naming the closest prior paper
• Putting all citations in one paragraph with no hierarchy
• Treating a proprietary dataset as the contribution by itself
• Ignoring identification papers that create the credibility bar

Frontier map

Build a one-page map before rewriting the literature section:

Paper | Finance question | Data/design | Mechanism | Your difference | Required citation location

Use the map to keep JBF positioning finance-first. A paper belongs near the introduction only if it defines the closest banking, intermediation, corporate-finance, or market-functioning question. Purely methodological references belong beside the identification or measurement choice, not in the contribution paragraph.

If the manuscript relies on a proprietary dataset, the map must show why the data uncover a mechanism or policy margin that public data cannot. Proprietary access is not a contribution unless it changes what can be learned about finance.

JBF strand map

Place the paper in one named strand before drafting the introduction; JBF referees are usually recruited from within the strand:

• Bank capital, liquidity, and credit supply (Basel margins, lending responses)
• Deposit franchise and funding fragility (insured vs uninsured funding, run risk)
• Relationship and small-business lending; loan contracting in syndicated markets
• Bank competition, governance, and risk-taking / financial stability
• Credit risk measurement and validation (PD/LGD models, distance-to-default)
• Fintech, digital banking, and sustainable finance as they touch intermediation

A manuscript spanning two strands should lead with the one whose referees can certify the contribution and treat the other as a secondary audience.

Worked delta statement (illustrative)

Draft topic: climate-disclosure mandates and syndicated loan pricing.

• Closest strand: climate exposure and bank lending; suppose the nearest paper documents higher spreads for carbon-intensive borrowers.
• Stated delta: "Relative to that borrower-side evidence, we exploit lender-side disclosure mandates and show the price response comes from disclosing banks (illustrative +14 basis points on affected facilities) rather than borrower-risk repricing."
• The delta names the new variation (lender-side mandate), the mechanism (supervisory disclosure pressure), and the audience (banking-regulation readers), so the paragraph survives a strand-expert referee.

Positioning pushbacks at JBF

• "The closest paper sits in an intermediation journal and is not cited." → search JFI/JFS-adjacent strands, not only top-3 finance outlets, before claiming a gap.
• "Your gap is a data gap." → restate the delta as mechanism or identification; data access alone reroutes to jbf-data-analysis.
• "The introduction reads as a survey." → cut to the 5-8 closest papers with explicit deltas; park the rest in a related-literature paragraph.

Output format

[Closest paper] citation + result
[Your delta] data / design / mechanism / scope / policy
[Literature buckets] ...
[Must-cite missing items] ...
[Positioning sentence] ...
[Next step] jbf-identification-strategy