SMR Literature Positioning

Use this to place the contribution in the methods literature, not the substantive one. SMR reviewers are methodologists who often know the closest prior estimator, the original derivation, and the competing approach in a neighboring discipline. A missed precedent is the fastest path to a reject.

Position against methods, not findings

The literature review of an SMR paper answers "what is the closest method, and how is yours different?" — not "what is known about the substantive topic." Structure the review as a small map:

• Direct ancestors: the method(s) your contribution extends, corrects, or replaces. Cite the primary source, not a textbook summary.
• Cross-discipline siblings: the same problem solved in statistics, econometrics, psychometrics, machine learning, or network science. SMR readers expect you to know that a "new" sociology method may already exist under another name elsewhere.
• Competing methods: the alternatives a reviewer will demand you beat in simulation. Name them here so the comparison set in smr-simulation-studies is not a surprise.