brycewang-stanford NM&S Workflow Router (newms-workflow)
The orchestrator for a New Media & Society submission. NM&S is the broad interdisciplinary journal on digital media, the internet, and society, and it is methodologically pluralist — so the router's first job is to confirm the work has stakes for new media and society broadly and to send the user to the skill matching their stage and their method.
When to trigger
- Starting a new NM&S paper and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Worried the work reads as a platform case study with no portable argument
- Returning with a decision letter (route to
newms-rebuttal)
First question: contribution & method
NM&S asks two things up front. First, does this say something about new media and society, not just about one app or one dataset? Second, what method carries the claim — because design and analysis advice differ sharply:
| Method family | Typical evidence | Routing weight |
|---|---|---|
| Qualitative — interviews, digital ethnography | interview corpus, fieldnotes, online observation | theory ↔ evidence loops heavily |
| Critical / theoretical | concepts, close reading, normative argument | theory-building is the spine |
| Content / discourse analysis | coded texts, posts, images, platform artefacts | coding scheme + intercoder reliability |
| Computational | scraped/API traces, networks, NLP/ML measures | validation against human labels + data ethics |
| Mixed-methods | two strands integrated | design must say how strands talk |
Routing map (stage → skill)
Idea / fit for NM&S? → newms-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → newms-literature-positioning
What's the conceptual argument? → newms-theory-building
Is the design defensible? → newms-research-design
Is the analysis/inference sound? → newms-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear? → newms-tables-figures
Does it read for the field? → newms-writing-style
Data ethics + transparency? → newms-transparency-and-data
How will it be judged? → newms-review-process
Ready to submit? → newms-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → newms-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: interview, ethnographic, and critical papers loop theory ↔ evidence many times before the argument settles; do not force them through a single linear pass.
Symptom-to-skill dispatch
NM&S referees judge interdisciplinary significance and method-appropriate rigor together. Most symptoms map cleanly to one sub-skill — use this lookup before defaulting to the linear order.
| Symptom you arrive with | Likely root | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| "A reader says it's just a platform case study" | fit / framing | newms-topic-selection |
| "Reviewer says I ignored relevant fields" | cross-field positioning | newms-literature-positioning |
| "It's called atheoretical / merely descriptive" | no portable concept | newms-theory-building |
| "Reviewer doubts the sampling / case / coding logic" | design | newms-research-design |
| "They want reliability / robustness / validation" | analysis | newms-data-analysis |
| "An exhibit or quote table is unclear" | exhibits | newms-tables-figures |
| "It reads as technical-only or jargon-heavy" | prose for the field | newms-writing-style |
| "How was this scraped — was that ethical?" | data ethics | newms-transparency-and-data |
| "What will reviewers want?" | expectations | newms-review-process |
| "Submitting tomorrow" | preflight | newms-submission |
| "Got an R&R" | response letter | newms-rebuttal |
Worked micro-example (illustrative routing)
User: "I interviewed 30 gig couriers about the app that ranks them, but a colleague says it 'won't fly
at NM&S — too niche.'"
Router read: the worry is portability, not data → start at newms-theory-building (name the mechanism:
algorithmic management as datafied control), then newms-literature-positioning (platform-labor +
surveillance debates), then newms-research-design (informant logic, saturation, positionality).
Method: qualitative interviews → loop theory ↔ evidence.
Then: newms-tables-figures (a quote-to-claim table) → newms-writing-style → newms-transparency-and-data
(consent + platform-data ethics for the app screenshots).
The router resists the linear default and sends the interview study to theory and positioning first.
Referee-stage pushback → which skill answers it
- "Not significant for new media and society broadly." → newms-topic-selection then newms-writing-style.
- "Method isn't rigorous for its kind." → newms-research-design in the matching tradition.
- "Scraping looks ethically dubious." → newms-transparency-and-data before re-submission.
Calibration anchors
- Interdisciplinary significance is the gate, not a garnish. The work must reach beyond one platform and one field; route to topic-selection whenever fit is in doubt.
- Method sets the path. Qualitative/critical papers loop theory ↔ evidence repeatedly; computational papers stand or fall on validation + data ethics.
- Confirm volatile specifics (~8,000-word target, abstract length, current editors) on the live page.
Anti-patterns
- Treating NM&S like a single-platform trade outlet — the claim must travel beyond one app or site
- Forcing a regression template onto interview, ethnographic, or interpretive work
- A computational paper with strong metrics but no validation and no data-ethics account
- Forgetting the ~8,000-word target (incl. notes, references, tables) and anonymous-review masking
Output format
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / ethics / review / submit / rebut
【Method】qualitative / critical-theoretical / content-discourse / computational / mixed
【Route to】newms-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— digital-media data sources + software by method../../resources/official-source-map.md— official NM&S URLs behind every fact in this pack