Literature Positioning (commres-literature-positioning)

SkillDev tools

Use when positioning a Communication Research (CR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a cumulative, theory-testing contribution to communication science. CR reviewers expect engagement with the empirical communication literature and the rival accounts your hypotheses adjudicate. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.

Then ask your AI: use the Literature Positioning (commres-literature-positioning) skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills in Communication-Research-Skills/skills/commres-literature-positioning/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

CR is a cumulative, social-scientific journal: reviewers ask how your hypotheses extend, qualify, or adjudicate the prior empirical communication literature. Positioning is not throat-clearing — it places the paper where a quantitative communication scientist can see the open question, the rival accounts, and the move your tests make.

When to trigger

  • Drafting or revising the introduction and the "present study / hypotheses" paragraph
  • A reviewer said you "missed obvious work" or "don't engage the debate"
  • You need to distinguish your hypotheses from the closest prior empirical papers
  • Your effect is solid but the contribution to communication theory is unclear

How CR wants the literature engaged

  1. Engage the empirical debate, not a pile of citations. Identify the live disagreement or open question your hypotheses speak to, and cite the studies that define it — including the strongest prior tests.
  2. Build to hypotheses. CR introductions march from theory and prior findings to explicit, numbered hypotheses (and research questions); positioning sets up exactly those predictions.
  3. Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured, under-tested, or confounded in prior work, and why resolving it advances communication science.
  4. Position against rivals. "Prior work argues X via mechanism M; we test whether M holds, is conditional on C, or is better explained by M′." The rival becomes a tested alternative, not a foil.
  5. Theory over platform. Frame around the communication process or construct, not the medium or dataset — platforms change; tested mechanisms accumulate.

Cross-area engagement (CR is read across communication science)

If your paper is…also engage…
a media-effects experimentthe general processing/persuasion theory it tests, not one stimulus literature
a survey of new-media usethe use→effect process literature, not just platform descriptions
a content analysisthe substantive effects/processing literature the coded features speak to
a health/political communication studythe message/audience mechanism literature beyond one topic

Anti-patterns

  • A "literature dump" with no organizing empirical debate
  • Engaging only one platform or topic niche (a common CR rejection reason)
  • Hypotheses that do not follow from the cited theory and prior findings (HARKing risk)
  • Strawmanning prior work, or hiding the closest competing study
  • Self-citation that breaks anonymity — write self-citations in the third person (see commres-submission)

Positioning pass for Communication Research

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the communication process, the measured constructs, the study design, and the inferential claim; then judge whether the manuscript answers CR's real reader: a quantitatively trained communication scientist who weighs theory, measurement validity, identification, and effect interpretation.

  • Do the pass: Build a three-column map — incumbent finding/account, unresolved tension, this paper's tested delta; include one rival account the design must rule out and one sibling-venue omission a referee would flag.
  • Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows so the next agent edits rather than rediscovers the issue.
  • Sibling guard: Journal of Communication (all-paradigm), Human Communication Research (interpersonal), New Media & Society (digital). If a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
  • Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until resources/official-source-map.md has been checked and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【Debate】the live empirical disagreement / open question
【Key works】the 3-6 prior tests that define it
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / confounded / untested
【Hypotheses】how H1…Hk follow from the positioned theory
【Strongest rival】the account the design will adjudicate
【Next】commres-theory-building

Supplementary resources

Signals

GitHub stars
1k
Forks
155
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Item type
skill
Key
commres-literature-positioning
Source
github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills