Manuscript Submission Guidelines

Please review the instructions on this page before you submit your manuscript in ScholarOne. If you have any questions, contact the editorial office.


All manuscripts must be submitted in ScholarOne. ScholarOne provides downloadable guides, FAQs, and other resources for authors. If you need technical assistance using ScholarOne, contact ScholarOne Support.


If you are submitting an invited revision (including conditional acceptances), review the additional instructions for invited revisions and revision notes. Please note our two-year deadline for revisions effective October 17, 2018 (all revisions invited prior to this date are due by October 16, 2020)


If your manuscript is not an invited revision but you have submitted a version of the manuscript before or there is significant overlap with a previous submission to JCR, review the additional instructions for manuscripts related to prior submissions.


The instructions on this page are for the review process only. If you are submitting the final materials for an accepted manuscript, review our instructions for accepted manuscripts.

Table of Contents

Editorial Objectives
Appropriate Types of Manuscripts
Policy on Related and Overlapping Publications
Research Integrity, Transparency, and Ethics

    •  Data Collection Paragraph

    •  Research Methods Transparency Guidelines
    •  Data Analysis Transparency Guidelines

    •  Data Archiving (revised June 1, 2019)
            –  Data Archiving Mechanics
            –  Data Ownership and Sharing
            –  Institutional IRB and Grant/Foundation Requirements
            –  Exceptions

    •  Data Maintenance Policy
    •  Plagiarism Check
    •  Penalty Policy
(effective January 1, 2020)
Overview of the Review Process

Suggestions for the Editorial Team

Conflicts of Interest
Prior Related Submission to JCR

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

    •  Manuscript Formatting

    •  Footnotes

    •  Tables
    •  Figures

Manuscript Content
    •  Manuscript Title
    •  Author Note
    •  Contribution Statement
    •  Abstract and Keywords
    •  Appendixes
    •  References
Invited Revisions
    •  Revision Deadlines
    •  Revision Notes
Web Appendix
    •  Excel Files
    •  If Your Manuscript Is Accepted
Requests for Clarification
Appealing an Editor's Decision
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 confidential cover letter 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 confidential cover letter 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, Transparency, and Ethics

JCR fully supports research integrity and the ethical conduct of consumer research:
An earlier editorial by Mary Frances Luce, Ann McGill, and Laura Peracchio addresses research integrity and broader ethical issues related to scientific research: Promoting an Environment of Scientific Integrity: Individual and Community Responsibilities
  • JCR's Policy Board is responsible for the development and implementation of editorial direction and policy. The Policy Board and editors have implemented the following policies and practices to promote research integrity and professional ethics as specified in each of the sections below. Authors should follow the policies and practices detailed below, prior to submitting their manuscript:

Data Collection Paragraph

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

Enter your data collection paragraph in the relevant field during Step 5 of the submission process (d
o not include the data collection paragraph in the manuscript file during the review process).

Include university names and other identifying details; the data collection paragraph will be accessible to the editor and associate editor but will not be shared with the reviewers.

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
  • 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.


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.

Research Methods Transparency Guidelines

Authors must provide the information noted below. Information can be presented in the manuscript or in a web appendix.

Methodology: Describe the research approach (e.g., experiment, field study, fMRI, survey, interview, ethnography, case study, phenomenology, narrative research, netnography, participant observation, historical research, econometric model, meta-analysis, analytical model).

Researcher Characteristics: Describe researcher qualifications and experience, interaction with respondents, involvement in data collection/data analysis, and researcher reflexivity (for inquiries that adopt researcher-as-instrument approach).

Context: For lab studies: describe all experimental conditions/manipulations, scenarios, vignettes. For field studies: describe the consumer setting, context rationale, and relevant contextual factors. For ethnography/cultural approaches: describe the choice of context, relevant contextual details, and the theoretical rationale for selecting this context.

Sample (of respondents, data, studies, documents, events): Describe the sampling method used (convenience, probability, purposive, theoretical) and method of recruitment/selection (subject pool, online panel, snowball, compensation). For meta-analysis, identify databases used, journals searched, publication date ranges, procedures used to contact researchers regarding unpublished studies and evidence of publication bias). For all types of research, describe sample inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, and stop rules (which may include theoretical saturation), power, screening rules and criteria used to select sample or research sites, negative case selection, sample characteristics and other sample-related factors relevant to the research context.

Data Collection Procedures: Provide details about the types of data collected and rationale. Provide details about participants'/researchers' activities in the process of data collection (e.g., study protocol). Describe data collection context and location, stimuli shown to respondents, and the order in which measures/data were collected. If secondary data- sources are used, indicate source(s) and time-periods involved. If automated digital data capture is employed, procedures should be rendered as transparent as possible.

Data Collection Instruments: For questionnaires: provide a copy of the questionnaire as shown to respondents. For qualitative data: describe fieldwork, observation or interview procedures (e.g., types of questions) and how these evolved, as well as description of how data were captured (field notes, audio recording, photographs, etc.). If automated web crawling algorithms or other automated procedures of digital data capture are employed, provide details in an appendix. For meta-analysis: describe coding metric, qualifications and number of individuals used to extract data, reliability information, and how disagreements were resolved.

Post-Data Screening: Describe the method used to screen data after collection (e.g., outliers, attention screens, comprehension screens), cutoffs for screening measures, distribution of eliminated individuals across conditions.

Data Description:
Report descriptive characteristics (e.g., N's, means, standard deviations), transformations, correlations, intercoder reliabilities, scale reliabilities, final items/items deleted. The number and length of depth interviews should be reported. If formal field notes exist, the size of the corpus should be mentioned. Similarly, photographic evidence should be described in terms of numbers of images. The nature and number of websites, message boards, gaming sites, message threads, and units of social media should be reported. Treatment of missing data should be reported as well.

Maintaining Participants’ Rights: For primary research, indicate how participants' rights were safeguarded (i.e., by IRB approval or national policy for safeguarding participant rights). Describe procedures for managing/archiving data, anonymization and deidentification of data, and procedures for ensuring data security.

Data Analysis Transparency Guidelines

Authors must provide the information noted below. Information can be presented in the manuscript or in a web appendix.

Describe the study design, factors, factor levels, whether factors are between or within subjects, cell sizes, covariates and their significance, and results if covariates are not included. Report full ANOVA table and effect sizes.

Regression: Indicate which variables are included, in which order. Report regression coefficients (with confidence limits) or standard errors. Specify whether coefficients are standardized or not. In moderated regressions, note which variables are continuous, if variables are centered or standardized, and which values are used to define high and low levels (e.g., +/-1 SD).

Exploratory Factor Analysis: Clarify use of EFA or PCA, the method of rotation, eigenvalues/% variance accounted for, and standardized factor loadings, correlation matrix of all final scale items, factor correlations (if an oblique method of rotation is used) and items removed through purification.

Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Describe the model, estimation method (e.g., maximum likelihood), omnibus fit statistics (e.g., Chi-square, df, RMSEA, CFI, Tucker-Lewis Index or Bentler-Bonett Non-normed Fit Index, Standardized RMR), parameter estimates, standard errors (z values) for all (including insignificant) paths (in Figure or Table). Describe model modifications made to achieve satisfactory fit.

Meta-Analysis: Indicate how variables were chosen for inclusion and exclusion. Report effect sizes and bases (e.g., means, binary data, correlations, risk ratios). Describe whether fixed vs. random effects models are used. Describe procedures for identifying and quantifying heretogeneity. Report confidence or credibility intervals, procedures used to account for small samples or unequal group numbers, methods for weighting study results; description of transformations and model fit (if using Bayesian analysis).

Qualitative Interpretation: Describe the analytical procedures used (process by which themes, interpretations, and/or frameworks were developed, usually referencing a particular paradigm or approach — e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology, discourse analysis, abduction, extended-case method, analytic case method, analytic framework, etc.). Describe unit of analysis or types of cases. Describe how data interpretation evolved over time. Describe procedures used to ensure trustworthiness, credibility, verisimilitude, and theoretical generalizability of interpretation (e.g., member checks, negative cases, triangulation, immersion in context, etc.).

Estimation Details: Identify the algorithms used (e.g., GMM, 2SLS, ML, EM, MCMC, HMC, VB), estimator characteristics, convergence criteria, run-times, machine learning packages employed (e.g., R or Python packages, their web locations, access versions).

Simulation Studies: For papers with custom programming or models, describe various scenarios with parameters both similar to and different from the ones estimated in the paper. Report full details regarding parameter recovery and code correctness.

Analytical Models: Describe robustness checks: assumptions, models explored, distributions.

Data Archiving (revised June 1, 2019)

All JCR authors whose manuscripts are accepted are required to archive their research data in sufficient detail to enable appropriate responses to questions about their data or results. The policy is in the spirit of scientific advancement by:
  • Ensuring that authors can access their original data if it is pertinent to a new research project of their own
  • Ensuring that authors can respond to queries about their data or results about which non-authors may have an interest
Authors must sign a form that certifies their archiving activity (see Data Archiving Mechanics below). This policy applies to all articles accepted on or after June 1, 2019. It is not retroactive. Data must be archived for at least 5 years after the date of publication, but it is recommended that authors archive their data in perpetuity so they have easy access to the data when a future need arises.

Data Archiving Mechanics

Each author must sign a form that certifies:
  1. Their agreement with JCR’s data archiving policy;
  2. That data have been archived on a password-protected, off-site repository of the authors’ choice, which they must specify. Suggested repositories are noted here. Authors must specify the URL(s) for where the data are stored;
  3. That each author has access to the stored data and permission to access it;
  4. That archived data includes all original data and interim techniques (transformations, analysis procedures) or explanations that would allow the authors or independent researchers to replicate the analyses contained in the manuscript.

This form must be submitted with the final publication documents when the manuscript is accepted.

Data Ownership and Sharing

Archiving of data does not imply that authors give up ownership of their data or that they have agreed to share their data in part or in full with others. Authors may respond to queries about their data by sharing specific results as opposed to raw data. Authors who do choose to share archived data must ensure that data are treated according to the institutional policies under which the data were collected (e.g., they have been de-identified to protect the rights of human subjects).

Institutional IRB and Grant/Foundation Requirements

Authors should also check with their respective Institutional Review Boards or comparable institutions on data archiving as well as with any granting institutions or foundations that have supported their research. Different institutions may have their own data archiving requirements.


JCR recognizes that consumer data take many forms, and not all data can be digitally archived or archived in ways that allow for respondent de-identification. Certain data may also be proprietary, and hence unable to be shared. In such cases, the author team will consult with the editor in chief to determine appropriate compliance standards.

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. However, 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 manuscript be accepted or offered revision, the editor will address the request in the decision letter.

Plagiarism Check

The editorial office runs a plagiarism check on every submission using iThenticate. JCR considers “self-plagiarism” (instances in which authors borrow from their own previously published work without the proper citation) a form of plagiarism. has helpful information and links to other resources about plagiarism

Penalty Policy (effective January 1, 2020)

In the event that an author (or authors) is found to have engaged in some form of misconduct, he/she will be subject to a penalty which will be determined by the JCR Policy Board in consultation with the editors. The penalty will be commensurate with the nature of the offense and will likely include a ban on submitting to the journal. The Policy Board is empowered to customize penalties for each individual author in instances in which multiple authors are involved. The Policy Board reserves the right to inform an author’s institution of the nature of the misconduct and the penalty.  This policy applies to all ongoing cases effective January 1, 2020.

Overview of the Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by an editor to determine suitability for review at JCR.
However, we do not preview abstracts or provide pre-submission assessments of the suitability of manuscripts for possible publication.

Our review process is double-blind:
  • Authors do not know the identities of the associate editor and reviewers
  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the associate editor and authors
  • The editor and associate editor know the identities of the authors and reviewers
The general review process is as follows:
  • The managing editor reviews the submission for adherence to requirements
  • The editor in chief assigns an editor; each editor (including the editor in chief) handles approximately one-fourth of all submissions
  • The editor assigns an associate editor (AE) and selects three reviewers
  • The AE has three days to confirm the assignment and suggest alternate reviewers to the editor
  • The manuscript is sent to the reviewers who evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, make recommendations to the editor, and provide comments for the authors
  • The AE prepares a report to the authors assessing, integrating, and prioritizing the reviewers' concerns, and makes a recommendation to the editor
  • The editor determines the final disposition of the manuscript and prepares a decision letter
  • The editor's decision letter is emailed to the authors and reviewers (the blinded AE report and the blinded individual reviews are attached)
Reviewers advise the editor and the AE about potential weaknesses in the manuscript, but the editor and the AE decide whether the reviewers' concerns are serious or not. Reviewers are asked to make a recommendation for disposition of the paper, but their recommendations are not “votes.” For example, a reviewer might recommend acceptance but also note a shortcoming in the work that the AE and editor believe deeply undermines the contribution of the research. Or, a reviewer might recommend rejection based primarily on a legitimate shortcoming for which another member of the review team might propose a workable solution. As these examples illustrate, specific comments on the work are the key component of each review, not the reviewer's recommendation per se.

By following this process, 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.

Our instructions for reviewers
contain additional information about the review process.

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 cover letter 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.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors should mention all possible conflicts of interest in their cover letter to the editor.

A conflict of interest (COI) is any relationship that might bias or give the appearance of bias in reviewer assessments or editorial decisions, e.g., current or recent former colleagues, co-authors on other work, advisers, students, close friends or relations, or anyone who has seen or provided comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

See our Conflict of Interest Policy.

Prior Related Submission to JCR

If your manuscript is not an invited revision but you have submitted a version of the manuscript before (i.e., the editor provided a "straight reject," "reject and submit new," or "desk reject" decision) or there is significant overlap with one of your prior submissions to JCR:
  • It must be submitted as a new manuscript
  • Revision notes are not required
  • You must explain the relationship between the new submission and the prior submission in your confidential cover letter to the editor
  • You must disclose the previous manuscript number in your confidential cover letter to the editor (regardless of the editor's previous decision)
Note: You may provide revision notes (choose the "Supplementary File NOT for Review" file designation when uploading the revision notes file during Step 2 of the submission process). However, the file will only be accessible to the editor and associate editor and will not be shared with reviewers.


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

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

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. Our subscribers have varied backgrounds, so gear your manuscript to an interdisciplinary audience.

Proofreading and Copy Editing

Proofread your manuscript 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 manuscript for submission (English-language copy editing, general writing, and language or translation issues), consider the following:
Note: These 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 your manuscript during the review process. However, author identities should not be omitted from the references (if applicable).

  • Do not include the author note or the data collection paragraph in the manuscript file (these items must be entered into the appropriate field during the submission process and will only be visible to the editor and associate editor)
  • In the methods sections, where data collection and participant pools are discussed, use terms such as “large public university” instead of the name of the specific institution where data were collected
  • 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

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 typical manuscript submitted to JCR ranges from 35 to 40 double-spaced pages, shorter manuscripts are also welcome. In some instances, a manuscript may require a 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 double-spaced pages will be considered.

Manuscripts exceeding 60 pages may be considered for publication. However,
authors of longer manuscripts should be cognizant that acceptance of such manuscripts rests on editorial judgment of their greater relative contribution to knowledge.

If you would like to submit a manuscript longer than 60 pages:
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, contribution statement, and abstract do not count toward the page limit).

Manuscript Formatting

Your manuscript file must be in
Word, Rich Text, PDF, or LaTeX format and adhere to the following formatting requirements:

  • Do not number the pages during the review process (ScholarOne will number the pages when converting the file to a blinded PDF)
  • The main text must be in single-column format, double spaced, in Times New Roman 12 font
  • There must be one-inch margins on all sides
  • The manuscript must be left justified
  • Use letter format (not A4 or international)
  • Do not include line numbering
  • Nothing should be underlined
  • There should be no endnotes
  • Do not include a running head
  • Our style sheet (for accepted manuscripts) contains guidelines for statistical reporting and formatting references
  • Tables and figures should be placed in the body of the manuscript during the review process (do not upload separate files with tables and figures)
If you need assistance formatting your manuscript, please consult your university support staff.


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.


Tables must be included in the main manuscript file and placed in the body of the manuscript during the review process.

Note: If your manuscript is accepted for publication, the typesetter will require an editable version of each table.


Figures must be included in the main manuscript file and placed in the body of the manuscript during the review process.

High-resolution images are not required during the review process, and authors are strongly encouraged to include lower-resolution images in order to reduce the manuscript file size and streamline uploading and downloading. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, separate figure files will be required and higher-resolution images can be submitted at that time.

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.


It is your responsibility to ensure that you have received all necessary permissions for figures included in your manuscript prior to acceptance.

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 or contact OUP with questions regarding permissions.

Manuscript Content

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

Manuscript Title

Enter your manuscript title in the relevant field during Step 1 of the submission process.

  • The title must also be included in the manuscript file (before the contribution statement)
  • The title entered into ScholarOne MUST match the title in the manuscript file
  • Keep your title concise and clear; many titles can be shortened
  • Use descriptive terms and phrases that accurately highlight the core content of the manuscript
Titles are an important mechanism for drawing a wide variety of potential readers to your manuscript if it is 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

Enter your author note in the relevant field during Step 5 of the submission process (do not include the author note in the manuscript file during the review process). The author names and order listed in the author note should match the author information that was added to the submission during Step 4.

Denote the corresponding author and provide 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 and update the information in the author note with each revision.

The author note provides us with a record of author identities for each submission (as contact and affiliation details listed in ScholarOne user profiles may change later).

If the manuscript is based on the lead author's dissertation, the author note should state this (and should not state that all authors contributed equally to the article) if the article is to be considered for the Ferber Award.

See our sample author note.

Contribution Statement

Every new submission must include a contribution statement (maximum of 350 words).
Enter your contribution statement in the relevant field during Step 5 of the submission process.

Your contribution statement will be shared with the entire review team. The purpose of the contribution statement is for you to provide a clear and concise understanding of the primary contribution provided by your manuscript. Your contribution statement should:

1) clearly articulate the ways in which the research provides insight to a consumer-relevant question;
2) situate your research within the existing knowledge on the topic; and
3) explain what the research adds to what is already known about the consumer-relevant problem

  • Do not reveal author identities in your contribution statement
  • The contribution statement must also be included in the manuscript file (before the abstract)
  • The contribution statement entered into ScholarOne MUST match the contribution statement in the manuscript file
  • A contribution statement is required only for new submissions
  • Contribution statements will not appear in published articles
See our contribution statement instructions for additional information and sample contribution statements.

Abstract and Keywords

Enter your abstract (maximum of 200 words) in the relevant field during Step 1 of the submission process.
Your abstract should substantively summarize your manuscript and address the following:
  • Motivation/Problem (what gap does your research fill?)
  • Approach/Methods
  • Results/Findings
  • Implications and Conclusions
  • The abstract must also be included in the manuscript file (after the contribution statement), followed by a list of three to six keywords in a separate paragraph
  • The abstract entered into ScholarOne MUST match the abstract in the manuscript file
  • 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)
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 manuscript investigating processing style by comparing adults across the age span should reference both the relevant theories of processing and the operationalization through age, so that scholars with either interest would be drawn to the work.

See our sample abstract.


If appendixes are provided, they should appear on a new page before the references.

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


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.

  • Author identities should be left in the references (if applicable)
  • There must be a reference for every citation and a citation for every reference
  • Our style sheet (for accepted manuscripts) contains guidelines for formatting references
See our sample references.

Invited Revisions

If you are submitting an invited revision (including conditional acceptances) of a manuscript that was submitted in our legacy system:
  • Submit the revised manuscript as a new submission in ScholarOne (a new manuscript number will be assigned in ScholarOne)
  • Choose the "Revision notes" file designation when uploading your revision notes (no more than 15 pages) during Step 2
  • Provide the previous manuscript number when prompted during Step 5 and in your confidential cover letter to the editor
  • The managing editor will provide the editor, associate editor, and reviewers with the files and review materials from the previous round
If you are submitting an invited revision (including conditional acceptances) of a manuscript that was submitted in ScholarOne:
  • Log in to your author account and create a revision in the "Manuscripts Awaiting Revision" queue
  • When prompted to respond to the editor's decision from the previous round, you may enter your revision notes in the response field or attach a file (no more than 15 pages)
  • If you are attaching your revision notes as a file, enter "see attached file" in the response field and do not enter the full text of your revision notes
  • Do not reveal author identities in your response (it will be shared with the entire review team); if you would like to provide confidential comments to the editor and AE, you may enter a separate confidential cover letter to the editor and AE in Step 6 of the resubmission process
  • Revisions must be resubmitted within two years
  • Revision notes (no more than 15 pages) are required unless otherwise indicated in the editor's decision letter
  • Contribution statements are not required for invited revisions
  • The data collection paragraph should be updated with each revision
  • The author note should be updated with each revision
  • Any changes in authorship (addition, removal, or reordering of authors) should be noted in the confidential cover letter to the editor
  • To maintain continuity, the same AE and reviewers are usually assigned to invited revisions even if the editor changes (e.g., due to an editor's term ending)
  • If something in the editor’s decision letter or the review materials is unclear or inconsistent, authors may request clarification from the editor before revising their manuscript, but we do not provide or approve formal revision plans

Revision Deadlines

Effective October 17, 2018, invited revisions must be resubmitted within two years (if the decision was made in ScholarOne, the due date is indicated in your author account).

All manuscripts offered a revision opportunity prior to October 17, 2018
may be resubmitted as revisions until October 16, 2020.

Revision Notes

When submitting an invited revision, you must also submit revision notes (
unless otherwise indicated by the editor) providing an overview of how you addressed the broad issues and concerns summarized in the editor's decision letter and the AE report.

Your revision notes will be shared with the entire review team and you may provide very brief separate comments to individual reviewers, but this is not necessary; everything can go into the overview focused on the decision letter and the AE report.

The AE’s role is to integrate and prioritize reviewer concerns, and assigning an AE to each manuscript ensures that authors are not pulled in multiple directions to please a disparate set of reviewers.

  • Keep your revision notes brief (no more than 15 pages) and avoid repetition
  • Do not include a signature or other identifying information
  • Do not respond or refer to trainee reviews
  • Do not number the pages (ScholarOne will number the pages when converting the file to a blinded PDF)
  • Do not refer to page numbers in the manuscript when discussing changes to your manuscript (the page numbers may change after manuscript conversion)

Web Appendix

Authors are encouraged to submit a supplementary document (i.e., a web appendix) containing stimuli, instruments, replication studies, or additional information not contained in the manuscript.
The contents of the web appendix should be supplements or enhancements only (not content essential to the understanding of the article).

Upload a separate web appendix file during the submission process:
  • Select the "Web Appendix" file designation during Step 2
  • Select "Yes" when prompted during Step 5
  • The web appendix will be included (after the manuscript) in the system-generated blinded PDF that is provided to reviewers
  • Do not include author names or other identifying information in your web appendix during the review process
  • Include the article title and a brief paragraph describing the contents of the web appendix
  • Mention the web appendix in-text where relevant, e.g., "See the web appendix for additional details"
  • Format your web appendix in the same manner as a manuscript
Excel Files:

Do not upload Excel files containing many columns or multiple worksheets (these files do not convert properly to PDF). If you would like to share data in a complex Excel file with reviewers, we recommend one of the following options:
  • Convert the Excel file to PDF (make sure the formatting is correct after conversion) and upload the PDF instead
  • Remove identifying properties from the Excel file (see instructions), upload it to the cloud (e.g., Dropbox), and provide a link to the file in your manuscript or web appendix
  • Upload the data to an open-access data repository (see Nature's list of suggested repositories) and provide a link to the data in your manuscript or web appendix
If you are providing a link, make sure the webpage at the link is completely anonymized and the URL does not identify authors or institutions.

If Your Manuscript Is Accepted:

The web appendix will accompany the online version of your article and can include any materials that are not appropriate for the print version because of space constraints

It is your responsibility to obtain necessary permissions for figures and other third-party content included in your web appendix prior to acceptance.

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
or contact OUP with questions regarding permissions

Requests for Clarification

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

Editors cannot discuss the review process directly with authors. All correspondence about your submission must be emailed to the editorial office (not the editor) and should come from the designated corresponding author on the manuscript.

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 (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 that will be archived in the system (reviewers will not see the editor's response).

Requiring written requests for clarification is not meant to act as a barrier. This process ensures good record-keeping, gives the editor sufficient time to reflect on answers, and allows the editor to consult with the AE before responding.

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 revised manuscript is submitted, it will be evaluated by the entire review team.

Appealing an Editor's Decision (posted July 24, 2019)

The purpose of the appeal process at JCR is to provide authors with an opportunity to overturn factual or procedural errors by the review team that materially affected the editor’s decision. Subjective factors such as the evaluative judgment of the editor, the perceived fairness of the decision, and whether the concerns are addressable are not grounds for appeal.

Authors who wish to appeal a decision should submit a letter of appeal to the editorial office within 120 days of receiving the decision letter. The letter of appeal should be no longer than three pages and should describe the factual or procedural errors that were made and provide evidence from the decision letter that said errors were material to the editor’s decision.

Further Information for Authors

ScholarOne Author Support
Open Access Publishing

If you have any questions, contact the editorial office.