Manuscript Submission Guidelines


Please read these guidelines carefully before submitting your new or revised manuscript (including conditional acceptances) through our submission system.

We do not preview abstracts prior to submission or provide pre-submission assessments of the suitability of manuscripts for possible publication. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by one of our editors within one week to determine suitability for review at JCR.


The new editorial team will handle all new manuscripts submitted after December 31, 2017 and all invited revisions (including conditional acceptances) submitted after March 31, 2018.

If you have any questions, please contact the editorial office.

Please note:

The instructions on this page are for the review process only. If you are submitting the final materials for an accepted manuscript, please review our instructions for authors of accepted manuscripts and log in to your author account to submit your final materials.

Table of Contents


Editorial Objectives
Appropriate Types of Manuscripts
Policy on Related and Overlapping Publications
Research Integrity and Ethics
    •  Data Collection Information
    •  Sample Data Collection Paragraphs
    •  Replicability
    •  Institutional Review Board Approval
    •  Data Archiving
    •  Data Maintenance Policy
    •  Supplementary Documentation

    •  Plagiarism Check
    •  Center for Open Science Disclosure

Overview of the Review Process

Suggestions for the Editorial Team

Correspondence

Web Appendix



Manuscript Preparation
    •  Proofreading and Copy Editing
    •  Author Anonymity
    •  Manuscript Length

    •  Manuscript Formatting

    •  Footnotes
    •  File Size
    •  Figures
    •  File Format

Manuscript Content
    •  Article Title
    •  Author Note
    •  Contribution Statement
    •  Abstract and Keywords
    •  Appendixes
    •  References
Additional Instructions for Invited Revisions
    •  Revision Notes
    •  Requests for Clarification
Further Information for Authors

Editorial Objectives


JCR publishes empirical, theoretical, and methodological papers of the highest quality on topics in consumer research. The overriding criterion for publication in JCR is that the paper should advance understanding of consumer behavior or the conduct of consumer research. Typically, a paper suitable for JCR should attempt to advance, deepen, or repudiate existing published theory about consumption, and offer empirical support for its claims.

JCR is an interdisciplinary journal. It encourages a variety of disciplinary perspectives, methods, conceptual approaches, and substantive problem areas. In general, JCR is interested in publishing articles derived from orientations and paradigms as diverse as those of the readership base.* In all cases, rigorous paradigm-appropriate inquiry is imperative. At the same time, papers should be intelligible to scholars in consumer research generally.

*JCR is governed by an 11-member policy board representing the following organizations:

American Anthropological Association
American Association for Public Opinion Research
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Marketing Association
American Sociological Association
American Statistical Association
Association for Consumer Research
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences

International Communication Association
Society for Consumer Psychology (APA Division 23)
Society for Personality and Social Psychology (APA Division 8)


Appropriate Types of Manuscripts


The following types of manuscripts are appropriate:
  • In general, all manuscripts dealing with the acquisition, consumption, and disposition of goods and services construed broadly, as well as the intra-individual, interpersonal, social, and cultural processes and effects related to these activities.
  • Empirical studies that report quantitative and/or qualitative theory and evidence illuminating a particular consumer behavior phenomenon or set of phenomena.
  • Organizational and societal consumer behavior research in which the unit of analysis is broader than the individual.
  • Reassessments of previously reported research findings or insights, with possible refinements.
  • Exploratory or descriptive research of unusually high generative potential in that the paper establishes groundwork for further theoretical research, defines the boundaries of the research issue, or raises important questions that can be investigated in future research activities.
  • Theoretical, conceptual, or perspective articles of unusual breadth or depth that introduce new concepts, explanations, and viewpoints regarding some important aspect of consumer behavior, including deductive, inductive, analytical, critical essay, and other approaches.
  • Review articles of unusual integrative vision offering a unified presentation of previous literature that contributes to the field by identifying significant gaps in knowledge, synthesizing previously disparate findings, integrating research streams from different disciplines, and/or identifying research priorities and future developments.
  • Meta-analyses of prior empirical findings on a particular consumer behavior topic that effectively summarize current evidence on conceptual and substantive issues and identify the most pressing and most novel directions for future research.
  • Methodological expositions that offer significant advances in the state-of-the-art research tools or philosophy-of-science issues pertaining to consumer research, with specific illustrations and implications for the conduct of consumer research.

Policy on Related and Overlapping Publications


Manuscripts are evaluated in large measure on the relative magnitude of their contribution to the literature. It is imperative therefore that the editors be made aware of related research that is not yet readily known. Hence, authors submitting a manuscript for review should clearly indicate in their note to the editor the relation of the manuscript to any other manuscripts currently under review, in press, or recently published by the authors. The editorial office may contact you to ask to see a copy of one or more of these other papers.

Failure to provide these references in the note to the editor may lead to withdrawal of a manuscript under review or, if published, to retraction of the article, if the work is determined to be materially similar to submission or publication at another journal.


JCR does not publish papers that have been previously published (in almost all cases). Occasionally, an author may wish to submit a manuscript that has been published elsewhere, in whole or in part. JCR will consider such a manuscript for publication only if it meets ALL of the following conditions:
  • At the time of manuscript submission, JCR receives written authorization from the holder of the copyright to publish any portion of the material in question.
  • The other outlets for the material in question are sufficiently inaccessible to the general JCR readership such that JCR will perform a real service to its readership by making the material more readily available.
  • The form of the potential JCR article differs substantially from the other forms in which the material is available in terms of length, positioning, type of analysis (if any), and/or the nature of the discussion. That is, the JCR article must offer some “value added” over and above the other presentations.
  • The manuscript is submitted on a timely basis (i.e., not long after the appearance of the material elsewhere and preferably prior to actual publication elsewhere).
  • The manuscript is accompanied by the other versions of the material available to allow editorial judgment of the three preceding points.
  • The manuscript is clearly intended to make an independent contribution to the consumer research literature and can in no way be construed as a mere promotional vehicle.

Research Integrity and Ethics


JCR's Policy Board and editors have developed various policies to promote research integrity.

When submitting manuscripts for review, authors must include a data collection paragraph in their confidential note to the editor. This information is updated with each revision and included in the final accepted version of the paper.

As additional precautions to safeguard research integrity, we run a plagiarism check on every submission and authors are encouraged to include supplementary materials (e.g., study stimuli, survey instruments) in a separate file during the review process. When a paper is accepted, these supplementary materials are published as a web appendix. A JCR-paid initiative also encourages authors to register their data with a third-party archiving service.

In the appendix to their inaugural editorial, the current editors discuss the importance of research integrity and provide a summary of various policies and practices that ensure continued publication of research that is accurate and provides a solid contribution on which other scholars may build.

An earlier editorial by Mary Frances Luce, Ann McGill, and Laura Peracchio addressed research integrity and broader ethical issues related to scientific research: Promoting an Environment of Scientific Integrity: Individual and Community Responsibilities

The Committee on Publication Ethics has guidelines and additional information on research integrity.

Read more about JCR policies and practices that promote research integrity and high standards of professional ethics:

Data Collection Information


When submitting new or revised manuscripts for review, authors must include a data collection paragraph in their confidential note to the editor (not in the manuscript itself, to preserve confidentiality during the review process).

Please write in the third person (e.g., "The authors jointly analyzed the data.") and provide the following information for each study:
  • Where the data were collected (including university name, if applicable)
  • When the data were collected
  • Who collected the data
  • Who analyzed the data
If a research assistant or lab manager collected data under the supervision of one of the authors, this should be stated in the data collection paragraph. However, authors are not required to provide the names of research assistants or lab managers.

The data collection paragraph should be updated and included in the note to the editor with each revision (as studies may be added or removed). This paragraph must also be included just before the appendixes (or before the references if there are no appendixes) in the final version of all manuscripts accepted for publication.

Sample Data Collection Paragraphs


Sample 1

The first author supervised the collection of data for the first study by research assistants at the University of Chicago Decision Research Lab in the autumn of 2011. The first and second authors jointly analyzed these data. The first and second authors jointly managed the collection of data for study 2 using the Qualtrics panel described in the methods section in the spring of 2012. These data were analyzed jointly by all three authors with support of a statistical staff member at the University of Chicago.

Sample 2

The first author conducted all of the in-person fieldwork herself from autumn of 2007 until spring of 2009. The second author acted as confidante throughout the process and visited the field site twice. Both authors conducted the online fieldwork independently and equally as active social media participants. Data were discussed and analyzed on multiple occasions by both authors using the first author’s field notes, photographs, video, and artifacts, and both authors’ online notes, screen captures, and text files. The final ethnography was jointly authored.

Replicability


For manuscripts incorporating experimental methods, the manuscript should provide sufficient details on research methodology so that it can be replicated (e.g., information on sample, procedure, data screening rules, statistical models, effect sizes reported as specifically as possible for significant effects).

Institutional Review Board Approval


For manuscripts incorporating primary data collection (e.g., experiments, surveys, interviews), the human subjects research reported has been exempted or approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) unless no author on the manuscript is affiliated with an institution that has an IRB or its equivalent.

Data Archiving


Authors are encouraged to consider providing their data (as applicable) to the broader research community by uploading their data files to an open-access third party data repository such as Dryad at any time during the review process. JCR will reimburse the cost to authors of utilizing this service, but there is no requirement to post your data.

If you choose to upload your data, it is your responsibility to obtain all necessary permissions to publicly post your data.

If your manuscipt is accepted for publication, the author note in the final version of your manuscript should note the availability of uploaded data files and provide a link to the data
.

Data Maintenance Policy


Authors of manuscripts that report data-dependent results will make available, upon request only, exact information regarding their procedures, stimuli, and data for five years after the date of publication for the benefit of researchers interested in replicating or extending these results.

JCR encourages authors to make their information available beyond the mandatory five years.

Exceptions will be made for identifiable or proprietary data. Authors must request such an exception and state the basis for it in the first version of a submission in which the relevant data appear. This request must normally be made at the time of the initial submission, although a request pertaining to data added in revision is allowable when the relevant revision is submitted. Should the relevant paper be accepted or offered revision, the editor will address the request in the decision letter.

Supplementary Documentation


Authors must provide sufficient information in their manuscripts about their research procedures, measures, and descriptive and summary results to enable reviewers to make informed judgments about the quality of the research.

All authors should thus be prepared to submit (only if requested) an additional Word file containing summary tables (e.g., correlations, analysis of variance summaries, means and standard deviations), scales or measures with reliability and validity assessment information, sample stimuli or instructions to respondents, interviewers, or observers, or procedures used to interpret textual data.

Supplementary material that repeats verbatim manuscript content should not be sent. The overall purpose of this recommendation is not to make the process more difficult but rather to decrease the number of revisions required as a result of matters that seem unclear.


Plagiarism Check


The editorial office runs a plagiarism check on every submission using iThenticate.

Plagiarism.org has helpful information and links to other resources about plagiarism
.


Center for Open Science: Disclosure of Sample, Conditions, Measures, and Exclusions


The Center for Open Science endorses the following statement for peer reviewers to request of authors the disclosure of data collection and analysis necessary to conduct their peer-review duties:
"I request that the authors add a statement to the paper confirming whether, for all experiments, they have reported all measures, conditions, data exclusions, and how they determined their sample sizes. The authors should, of course, add any additional text to ensure the statement is accurate. This is the standard reviewer disclosure request endorsed by the Center for Open Science [see http://osf.io/hadz3]. I include it in every review."
The content of such a disclosure does reflect JCR policy and, generally, proper scientific practice. That is, authors should report the entirety of their methods, including all measures, conditions, and data exclusions. Authors should also indicate how samples were chosen. Authors may have run a power test or simply have chosen a specific number of participants. Our concern here is that authors do not look for trends in the data and then add participants in the hopes of uncovering significant results. Please address these issues in your manuscripts.


Overview of the Review Process


Upon submission, the editor in chief selects the editor for each manuscript. The editor assigns an associate editor, who is made aware of the authors’ identity, and three reviewers, who are blind to the identity of the authors, editor, and associate editor. The reviewers evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. The associate editor integrates and prioritizes this analysis and makes a recommendation to the editor. The editor determines the final disposition of the paper. The blind associate editor’s report and individual reviewer comments are provided in support of all editorial decisions.

The general review process for JCR:
  • Managing editor checks submission and assigns manuscript number
  • Corresponding author receives confirmation email within 48 hours
  • Editor in chief assigns editor
  • Editor selects associate editor and reviewers
  • Associate editor has three days to make additional suggestions regarding reviewers
  • Manuscript is sent to reviewers, who have 25 days to return their reviews
  • Reviews are sent to associate editor, who prepares a report
  • Editor prepares decision letter based on associate editor's report and reviews
  • Editor's decision letter is emailed to corresponding author
  • Blind AE report and reviews are made available to all authors and reviewers in the peer review system
By following this procedure, we expect to make sound decisions on all manuscripts and provide consistently thorough, constructive, and fair reviews of all manuscripts. We seek to provide authors with an understanding of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of their manuscript, the basis for the decision, and advice on how to proceed.

JCR prides itself on providing high-quality, professional reviews in a timely fashion. Most decisions are made within 60 days of manuscript submission. Authors submitting longer manuscripts should anticipate a somewhat longer turnaround time.

A recent JCR tutorial by Rajesh Bagchi, Lauren Block, Rebecca W. Hamilton, and Julie L. Ozanne discusses both writing reviews for academic journals and responding to reviews of one’s own work: A Field Guide for the Review Process: Writing and Responding to Peer Reviews

Additional information about the review process can be found in our instructions for reviewers and on our FAQs page.

Please note:


According to a new policy established by JCR's Policy Board, all correspondence with reviewers and authors (e.g., review requests, submission confirmations, decision letters, clarification requests and other interim communications) can no longer reveal the editor in charge of a manuscript. To maintain anonymity, the editor can only be revealed at the end of the process, whether that result is acceptance or rejection. This policy applies to all new manuscripts (and their subsequent revisions) submitted on or after July 1, 2016.


Suggestions for the Editorial Team


The editor in chief selects the editor for each manuscript and authors should not request a specific editor. However, authors are encouraged to suggest up to three associate editors and five reviewers they consider most appropriate for their manuscript.

Please make these suggestions in your confidential note to the editor (not in the manuscript itself) and provide brief explanations. We may not invite these people to serve on the review team (depending on availability and other factors), but it is useful to see which associate editors and reviewers the authors believe would be most knowledgeable about their manuscripts, both in terms of substance and methods used.

Do not suggest people who have already seen the manuscript, nor anyone with whom you might have a conflict of interest (e.g., current or recent former colleagues, co-authors, advisers, friends, students).


Correspondence


Editors cannot discuss the review process directly (by email, phone, or in person) with authors. All correspondence about your manuscript should be emailed to the editorial office.

The designated corresponding author should communicate with the editorial office on behalf of all authors during the review process. The corresponding author is expected to coordinate with co-authors as necessary.

Please note:

According to a new policy established by JCR's Policy Board, editors must maintain anonymity during the review process and all correspondence with authors (e.g., submission confirmations, decision letters, clarification requests and other interim communications) can no longer reveal the editor in charge of a manuscript. The editor can only be revealed at the end of the process, whether that result is acceptance or rejection.
This policy applies to all new manuscripts (and their subsequent revisions) submitted on or after July 1, 2016.

Web Appendix


Authors are encouraged to submit stimuli, instruments, replication studies, or additional information not contained in the manuscript in a separate document (i.e., a web appendix) at any point in the review process.

The web appendix should be mentioned in-text where relevant, e.g., "See the web appendix for additional details."

Format your web appendix in the same manner as a manuscript. Include a title page with the article title, author names, and a brief paragraph describing the contents of the web appendix.

If your manuscript is accepted, this information will appear in the online version of your article (and should be referenced in the author note of the article). These online-only article enhancements can include any materials that are not appropriate for the print version because of space constraints.

Upon acceptance, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have received all necessary permissions for figures and other third-party content included in your web appendix. Our publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), provides detailed guidelines to help authors determine when permission is needed to use third-party content and answer common questions pertaining to the process of obtaining permissions. See the "Rights and permissions guidelines for authors" section of OUP's Rights and Permissions webpage.


Manuscript Preparation


JCR manuscripts are judged not only on the depth and scope of the ideas presented but also on whether they can be read and understood by our readers.

Please read the journal to familiarize yourself with the types of manuscripts we publish. R
emember that our subscribers have varied backgrounds, so gear your manuscript to an interdisciplinary audience.


Proofreading and Copy Editing


Proofread your paper carefully before submission and consider hiring a copy editor.

Ensure all comments among authors have been removed, all tracked changes have been accepted or rejected, and that the “track changes” feature has been turned off.

If you need professional assistance preparing your paper for submission (English-language copy editing, general writing, and language or translation issues), consider the following:
Please note:

T
hese are merely suggestions and use of these professional editing services does not guarantee publication. Your university might have a list of trusted editorial specialists as well.

Author Anonymity


Do not identify yourself or your university affiliation in the main text of your manuscript during the review process.

In the methods sections, where data collection and participant pools are discussed, use terms such as “large public university” instead. However, author identities should be included on the title page and left in the references if applicable.

If your manuscript is accepted for publication, the final version should be updated to include identifying information that was omitted during the review process
.


Manuscript Length


In general, authors should strive for economy and clarity when preparing manuscripts for JCR. The contribution to knowledge relative to the length of the manuscript is a key criterion in the editorial review process.

Although the prototypical manuscript submitted to JCR is in the range of 35 to 40 total double-spaced pages, shorter manuscripts are also welcome.

In some instances, a piece may require a somewhat longer exposition because of the nature of the manuscript’s objectives or research approach (e.g., development of a new theory, presentation of a series of related experiments, ethnographic research). In such cases, manuscripts ranging from 40 to 60 total pages will be considered.

Manuscripts exceeding 60 pages will sometimes be considered for publication. An author wishing to submit a manuscript that exceeds 60 pages should contact the editorial office before submitting the paper for review.

Authors of longer manuscripts should be cognizant that acceptance of such papers rests on editorial judgment of their greater relative contribution to knowledge.


Please note:
  • The 60-page limit refers to the total number of pages comprising the main text along with appendixes, references, tables, and figures.
  • The title page (which includes the author note), contribution statement, abstract, and keywords are not counted in the page limit.

Manuscript Formatting


Please review your manuscript file prior to submission to confirm adherence to our formatting requirements:

  • Tables and figures should appear throughout the body of the paper during the review process.
  • The main text must be double spaced in Times New Roman 12 font.
  • Numbering begins on the title page and is in the upper right corner.
  • The paper must be left justified.
  • There must be one-inch margins on all sides.
  • Use letter format (not A4 or international).
  • Nothing should be underlined.
  • The main text should be in single-column format.
  • There should be no endnotes in your manuscript.
If you need assistance formatting your manuscript, please consult your university support staff.

Footnotes


You may use footnotes, which appear at the bottom of the given page (not to be confused with endnotes, which appear at the end of the manuscript and are not allowed at JCR).

Create notes that are linked to the text using the footnote function on your word processor so that the footnotes are automatically and accurately renumbered when you make changes.

Use footnotes sparingly. If you have extensive footnote-like material, it should be included in an appendix instead.

File Size


Our submission system cannot accept files larger than 5 MB.

Figures


High-resolution images are not required during the review process, and authors are strongly encouraged to include lower-resolution images during the review process in order to reduce the manuscript file size and streamline uploading or downloading.

If you need assistance resizing the figures in your manuscript, please consult your university support staff. Detailed instructions are also available from Microsoft and How-To Geek.

Figures must be included in the main manuscript file and cannot be submitted as separate files during the review process.

If your manuscript is accepted for publication, separate figure files will be required and higher-resolution images can be submitted at that time. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have received all necessary permissions for figures included in your accepted manuscript.
Our publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), provides detailed guidelines to help authors determine when permission is needed to use third-party content and answer common questions pertaining to the process of obtaining permissions. See the "Rights and permissions guidelines for authors" section of OUP's Rights and Permissions webpage.

File Format


Our submission system can only accept files in Rich Text or Microsoft Word format (with the extensions .rtf, .doc, or .docx).


Before uploading your files, make sure the file names contain no special characters (the file name should include text and numbers only; no apostrophes, spaces, underscores, ampersands, etc.).

If your manuscript was prepared in LaTeX, we can accommodate your submission via the following modified process:
  • Convert the LaTeX file to PDF. The PDF should not include page numbers or any identifying information.
  • Send the PDF to the editorial office and let us know that you will be submitting a manuscript that was originally prepared in LaTeX.
  • Proceed with the submission process in our online system. Mention in your note to the editor that you are submitting a manuscript that was prepared in LaTeX and have emailed a PDF of the manuscript to the editorial office.
  • When the submission system prompts you to upload your manuscript, do not upload the LaTeX file or PDF. Instead, upload a separate document (in Rich Text or Microsoft Word format) that contains only the title page (including the author note), contribution statement, abstract, and keywords.
  • Editorial office staff will upload the PDF to the system and confirm receipt of your submission.

Manuscript Content


The manuscript file must include the following items, in order:
If you are also submitting a web appendix or revision notes, these items must be submitted as separate files.

Article Title


Please keep your title concise and clear. Many titles can be shortened. Use descriptive terms and phrases that accurately highlight the core content of the paper.

Titles are an important mechanism for drawing in readers. Consider your paper's title and change it if you feel that a different title would do a better job of drawing a wide variety of potential readers to your paper (if accepted).

Online indexing databases and search engines such as Google Scholar and Web of Science often use titles to categorize and display articles, and the title may therefore influence whether scholars will read an article.

A well-constructed and informative title should make your article discoverable to a larger number of scholars, which could lead to more citations.


Author Note


The title page of the manuscript should include an author note that denotes the corresponding author and the following information for each author:
  • Full name
  • Email address
  • Current position
  • Current affiliation (department and university/institution)
  • Acknowledgments of financial, technical, or other assistance
Authors should verify the order of author names in the authorship list before submitting their manuscript and update the information in the author note with each revision.

If the manuscript is based on a dissertation, the author note should also indicate this in order to be considered for our annual Ferber Award (if the paper is accepted). All accepted papers are eligible for the Ferber Award if the following is true:
  • The author note states that the article is based on the lead author’s dissertation
  • The author note does not state that all authors contributed equally to the paper
  • The lead author has not won the Ferber Award previously
  • All co-authors agree that the lead author did the lion’s share of the work on the paper
Please see our Ferber Award guidelines for detailed eligibility information and an overview of the award selection process.

Please see our sample author note.


Contribution Statement


Every new submission must have a contribution statement (a maximum of 300 words).

The contribution statement should be included in the manuscript after the author note and before the abstract. Contribution statements are for the review process only and are not included in published articles.

The goal of your contribution statement should be to provide a clear and concise focal point for your paper. Do not explain the methodological or operational details of your research.

Your contribution statement should focus on the following:
  • The state of scholarship prior to your research
  • What your research adds
Please see our contribution statement instructions for additional information and sample contribution statements.

Abstract and Keywords


Include an excellent abstract (a maximum of 200 words) that substantively summarizes your manuscript, followed by a list of three to six keywords in a separate paragraph.

Your abstract should address the following:

  • Motivation/Problem (what gap does your research fill?)
  • Approach/Methods
  • Results/Findings
  • Implications and Conclusions
During the review process, the abstract should contain enough information about your manuscript to allow potential reviewers to judge whether they have enough expertise to review the manuscript. The abstract should also be engaging enough for them to want to review it.

In crafting your abstract, recognize that JCR is an interdisciplinary journal and we aspire to being read and cited by scholars in a wide variety of disciplines. Make the writing in your abstract accessible so that the importance of your article will be transparent to a wide variety of scholars.

Include terms and descriptions that will allow your article (if accepted) to be found by scholars interested in your theories, substantive findings, and methods. For instance, a paper investigating processing style by comparing adults across the age span should reference both the relevant theories of processing and the operationalization through age, such that scholars with either interest would be drawn to the work.

In most cases, the title and the abstract are the only part of an article that scholars will see in online indexing databases and search engines such as Google Scholar and Web of Science. The effective use of carefully chosen keywords throughout your abstract should make your article discoverable to a larger number of scholars, which could lead to more citations.

Please note the following when writing your abstract:
  • Do not include any citations, tables, or figures in your abstract.
  • Do not include any information that is not in your article.
  • Avoid using "we" or expressions like "we found that consumers..." (omit "we found that" and just say "consumers..." instead).
Please see our sample abstract.

Appendixes


If appendixes are provided (this is not a requirement), they should appear on a new page before the references.

Multiple appendixes are labeled with letters (Appendix A, Appendix B). A single appendix is labeled without the letters (Appendix).


References


Each reference should be cited in the text at an appropriate place.

Do not include references that have no corresponding citations in the text, and be sure that you have provided the complete reference for every in-text citation. There must be a reference for every citation and a citation for every reference.

Author identities should be left in the references if applicable.

Please see our sample references.

Detailed instructions on formatting references are provided in our style sheet.


Additional Instructions for Invited Revisions


JCR does not impose deadlines on invited revisions. Authors should take the time required to make all necessary revisions before submitting their revised manuscript. The quality of revision is more important than the timeframe for resubmission.

A recent JCR tutorial by Rajesh Bagchi, Lauren Block, Rebecca W. Hamilton, and Julie L. Ozanne discusses both writing reviews for academic journals and responding to reviews of one’s own work: A Field Guide for the Review Process: Writing and Responding to Peer Reviews

Please note the following when submitting an invited revision (including conditional acceptances):
  • An updated data collection paragraph must be included in the confidential note to the editor with each revision.
  • The author note should be updated with each revision.
  • Any addition, deletion, or reordering of author names in the authorship list should be mentioned in the confidential note to the editor.
  • Contribution statements are not required for invited revisions.

Revision Notes


If you are submitting a revised manuscript (and the revision was invited by an editor at JCR), you also need to submit a set of revision notes providing an overview of how you addressed the broad issues and concerns summarized in the editor's decision letter and the associate editor's report. Your revision notes should explain any changes that you made in your revised manuscript that are not apparent in the paper itself.

Keep in mind that your goal is to win the support of the associate editor and the editor, not all reviewers on all details. Reviewers advise the editor and associate editor about potential weaknesses in the manuscript, but the editor and associate editor decide whether these are serious or not.

Use the editor's decision letter and the associate editor's report as your guide, and use the reviews for more detail on issues raised by the associate editor. You may provide very brief separate comments to reviewers explaining your changes, but this is not necessary; everything can go into the overview.

Our FAQs page contains additional instructions for preparing revision notes.

Please note the following when preparing your revision notes:
  • Keep your revision notes brief (no more than eight pages) and avoid repetition.
  • Do not refer to page numbers in the manuscript file when discussing changes you made to your manuscript (the page numbers may change after your manuscript is processed by the editorial office).
  • Do not include a signature or any identifying information in your revision notes (the revision notes file will be shared with the entire review team).

Requests for Clarification


If something is unclear or inconsistent in the review materials or the editor’s decision letter, authors are encouraged to email questions to the editorial office to request clarification from the editor before revising their manuscript.

All correspondence must be sent to the editorial office (not the editor) and should come from the designated corresponding author on the manuscript. Editors must maintain anonymity until a paper is either accepted or rejected and cannot discuss the review process directly with authors.

The managing editor will upload your written clarification request to the peer review system where it will only be visible to the editor and the associate editor in the manuscript file (reviewers will not see authors' clarification requests). The editor will decide whether to consult with the associate editor, and the editor will provide a response (sent to the corresponding author only) that will be archived with the manuscript file in the peer review system (reviewers will not see the editor's response).


Our FAQs page explains why clarification requests should always be in writing.

Please note:

JCR does not provide or approve formal revision plans. The editor will consider your request and try to provide the best possible feedback. However, clarification from the editor does not guarantee a positive outcome and should not be mistaken as a signal of approval of a specific revision plan. If a revision is submitted, changes made to the revised manuscript will be evaluated by the entire review team.


Further Information for Authors


Submission System
Tutorials in Consumer Research

Ferber Award Guidelines (for dissertation-based manuscripts)
Style Sheet (for accepted manuscripts)
Conflict of Interest Policy
FAQs


Please contact the editorial office with any questions.