---

name: jim-topic-selection description: Use when choosing or auditing a research question for a Journal of International Marketing (JIM) manuscript — testing whether the international dimension is the theoretical core and whether JIM beats sibling outlets. It vets the question; jim-theory-development builds the mechanism.

Topic Selection (jim-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• An idea exists but nobody has tested whether it is internationally interesting or merely set abroad
• The dataset covers several countries and the temptation is to let the data pick the question
• A domestic finding is being considered for "extension" to new markets
• The team cannot decide among JIM, JIBS, IMR, JWB, and Journal of Marketing

The JIM gate: the border must do theoretical work

JIM's editorial identity is built around one test. Ask it before anything else:

If this study were run inside a single country, would the research question still make sense?

If yes, the paper is not yet a JIM paper. The cross-national element — differences in culture, institutions, market development, regulation, consumer sophistication, or firm resources across borders — must be what generates the prediction, not what decorates the sample. Three acceptable shapes:

1. Cross-national variation as moderator. A marketing mechanism is theorized to strengthen, weaken, or reverse across countries for reasons stated before seeing the data (e.g., trust-based appeals working differently under weak contract enforcement).
2. Cross-border phenomena as the object. Exporting, entry-mode choice, global brand architecture, international channel governance, cross-border e-commerce, global segmentation — phenomena that only exist because borders exist.
3. Global-local tension. Perceived brand globalness vs. local iconness, standardization vs. adaptation, global consumer culture vs. ethnocentrism — questions where the global and the local pull in opposite directions.

Stress tests before committing

• The relabel test. Delete every country name from the pitch. If the sentence still describes the contribution, the international dimension is cosmetic.
• The two-country test. Can you name at least two countries where theory predicts different outcomes, and say why? "We collected data in the U.S. and China" is a sampling fact, not a prediction.
• The manager test. Which decision of a firm operating across borders changes if the answer flips — market selection, adaptation depth, partner choice, brand positioning, resource allocation across subsidiaries?
• The conversation test. Point to an active thread in JIM's last five volumes (or a JIM call for papers — e.g., the 2025–2026 calls on global sustainability and on AI in international marketing) that this paper would extend or correct.
• The feasibility test. Multi-country primary data, matched secondary panels, or a credible cross-cultural experiment must be attainable; a JIM question without JIM-grade data is a trap.

Domains where JIM currently lives

International marketing strategy (standardization/adaptation, global segmentation, marketing-mix decisions across markets); exporting and international entrepreneurship (export performance, born globals, SME internationalization); entry modes and international channels; global branding and country-of-origin; cross-cultural consumer behavior (values, ethnocentrism, animosity, xenocentrism, global consumer culture); emerging markets and institutional voids; digital and platform-based internationalization. A topic outside these threads is not banned — but the burden of proving relevance to international marketing (not international business generally) rises sharply.

Sibling boundary — say why JIM and not…

Outlet	Its center of gravity	Choose JIM instead when
JIBS	firm internationalization, IB theory broadly	the mechanism is a marketing mechanism (brands, customers, channels)
Journal of Marketing	broad marketing strategy, mostly context-free	cross-national variation is the engine, not a robustness note
International Marketing Review	earlier-stage, broader empirical bar	evidence meets top-tier standards (invariance, identification, multi-study)
Journal of World Business	management/strategy of MNEs	the outcome is a marketing outcome, not an org-level one
JCR / JCP	consumer psychology per se	the cultural comparison, not the psychological process alone, carries the paper

Write the one-sentence boundary claim now; the cover letter and introduction will reuse it verbatim.

Checklist

• The relabel test passes: removing country names breaks the pitch
• At least two countries with theoretically different predicted outcomes named
• The phenomenon or moderator is inherently cross-border, not sample decoration
• A cross-border managerial decision that hinges on the answer is identified
• An active JIM conversation (recent volumes or a live call for papers) is cited
• Multi-country data of top-tier quality is realistically obtainable
• The JIM-vs-sibling sentence is written down

Anti-patterns

• "Prior work studied X in the West; we study X in country Y" — new-context replication, JIM's most common desk reject
• Choosing countries by data convenience and inventing the cultural story afterwards
• Framing an international business question (FDI, governance, HQ-subsidiary politics) with a thin marketing veneer
• A 40-country secondary dataset with no theory about why country membership matters
• Pitching a topic no JIM issue has touched in a decade without explaining why it is due for revival

Output format

【Candidate question】one sentence, no country names
【International engine】moderator / cross-border phenomenon / global-local tension
【Two-country prediction】country A → outcome; country B → different outcome; because …
【Managerial hinge】the cross-border decision that flips with the answer
【Sibling boundary】why JIM over JIBS / JM / IMR / JWB (one sentence)
【Verdict】proceed / reshape / retarget outlet
【Next skill】jim-theory-development