Human Relations Workflow Router (humrel-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It tells you which humrel- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Human Relations (HR) — the long-established interdisciplinary social-science journal of work, organization, and management, published by SAGE for the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (founded 1947, monthly). HR draws on organization studies, sociology, psychology, and critical perspectives, and its stated aim is "to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation." It treats qualitative, critical, quantitative, and mixed-methods work as equally first-class — what is non-negotiable is a unique and substantive theoretical contribution anchored in the relational, social nature of work.
Operational tells that you are at HR and not a sibling: review is double-anonymous, so the manuscript must be fully anonymized (no author names, no links to external sites); the total length cap is 13,000 words including everything (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准); referencing is SAGE Harvard (author-date); submission is through ScholarOne / ManuscriptCentral (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hr). HR runs an editorial scoping screen before full review — "suitable data are a necessary but not sufficient feature to get to full peer review" — so the contribution and fit must be legible up front. Co-Editors-in-Chief are Smriti Anand and Penny Dick (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on an HR-targeted manuscript
- A draft needs its current bottleneck diagnosed
- Work is ping-ponging between theory, fieldwork/data, framing, writing, and the response letter
- An HR decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
- The team is weighing HR against Organization Studies, JMS, AMJ, or Organization
Routing table
| Current symptom |
Next skill |
| Scope/audience fit uncertain; "is this an HR paper?" |
humrel-topic-selection |
| Theory is thin, box-and-arrow, or under-engaged with social theory |
humrel-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. adjacent conversations/journals is fuzzy |
humrel-literature-positioning |
| Design choice and rigor (qual/critical/quant/mixed) unsettled |
humrel-methods |
| Coding, estimation, or data-to-theory link is opaque |
humrel-data-analysis |
| The "so what" / theoretical claim is not sharp |
humrel-contribution-framing |
| Exhibits (data-structure table, models) hard to read |
humrel-tables-figures |
| Prose flat; intro/abstract miss the reflexive HR register |
humrel-writing-style |
| Anonymization, 13k cap, SAGE Harvard, portal preflight |
humrel-submission |
| Want to calibrate scoping-screen odds / timeline / transfer |
humrel-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy |
humrel-rebuttal |
Default order
humrel-topic-selection — lock the work-and-society question and HR fit
humrel-theory-development — build the social-theoretical engine
humrel-literature-positioning — stake the contribution vs. the conversation
humrel-methods — design (qual / critical / quant / mixed) with rigor
humrel-data-analysis — make the evidence-to-theory link transparent
humrel-contribution-framing — sharpen the one-sentence theoretical claim
humrel-tables-figures — exhibits that carry, not decorate
humrel-writing-style — the reflexive HR voice (intro + abstract last)
humrel-submission — anonymized ScholarOne preflight
humrel-review-process — calibrate the scoping screen and developmental review
humrel-rebuttal — after the R&R
humrel-writing-style is a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before the theory and evidence settle.
Anti-patterns
- Treating HR as interchangeable with Organization Studies (EGOS), JMS, AMJ (US hypothesis-testing), or Organization (critical-only) — see the archetype table
- Sending a paper whose contribution is empirical-only ("we found X") with no theoretical advance — fails the scoping screen
- Polishing prose before theory, design, and the evidence hierarchy are stable
- Leaving author-identifying traces (acknowledgements, self-cites in first person, live URLs) in a double-anonymous submission
- Letting an appendix carry claims the 13k main text must establish
Routing by paper archetype
HR spans several traditions, and the binding constraint differs by archetype. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype |
Likely first bottleneck |
Enter at |
| Ethnographic / qualitative process study |
data-to-theory transparency + theoretical payoff |
humrel-theory-development → humrel-data-analysis |
| Critical / reflexive (power, identity, discourse) |
sharpening the critique into a travelling contribution |
humrel-literature-positioning → humrel-contribution-framing |
| Quantitative / survey / multilevel |
construct validity + theorizing beyond the coefficient |
humrel-methods → humrel-data-analysis |
| Mixed-methods |
integration logic (why both, what each adds) |
humrel-methods |
| Theory paper (no new data) |
novelty + reach vs. existing organizational theory |
humrel-theory-development |
Worked routing example (illustrative)
A user says: "My ethnography of platform couriers is rich, but a reviewer says it reads as 'a vivid case with thin theory' and feels closer to Work, Employment and Society than HR." That is two HR pushbacks — the data-to-theory ladder is invisible (owned by humrel-data-analysis) and the contribution is empirical not theoretical (owned by humrel-contribution-framing, scoped against siblings in humrel-literature-positioning). Route to theory and data first; only once the courier case yields a named, generative mechanism about control and identity at work — not just a labour-process description — do you return to humrel-writing-style and humrel-rebuttal.
Minimal decision snippet
if decision_letter_arrived: -> humrel-rebuttal
elif ready_to_submit: -> humrel-submission
elif exhibits_unclear: -> humrel-tables-figures
elif evidence_to_theory_opaque: -> humrel-data-analysis
elif design_or_rigor_unsettled: -> humrel-methods
elif claim_or_positioning_fuzzy: -> humrel-contribution-framing / humrel-literature-positioning
elif theory_thin: -> humrel-theory-development
else: -> humrel-topic-selection
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Human-Relations-Skills/skills/humrel-workflow/SKILL.md
1---2name: humrel-workflow3description: Use when deciding which humrel-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for a Human Relations (HR) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.4---5
6
7# Human Relations Workflow Router (humrel-workflow)
8
9## Overview
10
11This is the router. It tells you **which humrel-* skill to use at the current stage** of a manuscript aimed at *Human Relations* (HR) — the long-established **interdisciplinary social-science journal of work, organization, and management**, published by **SAGE for the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations** (founded 1947, monthly). HR draws on organization studies, sociology, psychology, and critical perspectives, and its stated aim is "to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation." It treats qualitative, critical, quantitative, and mixed-methods work as equally first-class — what is non-negotiable is **a unique and substantive theoretical contribution** anchored in the *relational, social* nature of work.
12
13Operational tells that you are at HR and not a sibling: review is **double-anonymous**, so the manuscript must be fully anonymized (no author names, no links to external sites); the total length cap is **13,000 words including everything** (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准); referencing is **SAGE Harvard** (author-date); submission is through **ScholarOne / ManuscriptCentral** (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hr). HR runs an **editorial scoping screen** before full review — "suitable data are a necessary but not sufficient feature to get to full peer review" — so the contribution and fit must be legible up front. Co-Editors-in-Chief are **Smriti Anand and Penny Dick** (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
14
15## When to trigger
16
17- The user asks "what should I do next?" on an HR-targeted manuscript
18- A draft needs its current bottleneck diagnosed
19- Work is ping-ponging between theory, fieldwork/data, framing, writing, and the response letter
20- An HR decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
21- The team is weighing HR against Organization Studies, JMS, AMJ, or Organization
22
23## Routing table
24
25| Current symptom | Next skill |
26|-----------------|------------|
27| Scope/audience fit uncertain; "is this an HR paper?" | `humrel-topic-selection` |
28| Theory is thin, box-and-arrow, or under-engaged with social theory | `humrel-theory-development` |
29| Contribution vs. adjacent conversations/journals is fuzzy | `humrel-literature-positioning` |
30| Design choice and rigor (qual/critical/quant/mixed) unsettled | `humrel-methods` |
31| Coding, estimation, or data-to-theory link is opaque | `humrel-data-analysis` |
32| The "so what" / theoretical claim is not sharp | `humrel-contribution-framing` |
33| Exhibits (data-structure table, models) hard to read | `humrel-tables-figures` |
34| Prose flat; intro/abstract miss the reflexive HR register | `humrel-writing-style` |
35| Anonymization, 13k cap, SAGE Harvard, portal preflight | `humrel-submission` |
36| Want to calibrate scoping-screen odds / timeline / transfer | `humrel-review-process` |
37| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | `humrel-rebuttal` |
38
39## Default order
40
411. `humrel-topic-selection` — lock the work-and-society question and HR fit
422. `humrel-theory-development` — build the social-theoretical engine
433. `humrel-literature-positioning` — stake the contribution vs. the conversation
444. `humrel-methods` — design (qual / critical / quant / mixed) with rigor
455. `humrel-data-analysis` — make the evidence-to-theory link transparent
466. `humrel-contribution-framing` — sharpen the one-sentence theoretical claim
477. `humrel-tables-figures` — exhibits that carry, not decorate
488. `humrel-writing-style` — the reflexive HR voice (intro + abstract last)
499. `humrel-submission` — anonymized ScholarOne preflight
5010. `humrel-review-process` — calibrate the scoping screen and developmental review
5111. `humrel-rebuttal` — after the R&R
52
53> `humrel-writing-style` is a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before the theory and evidence settle.
54
55## Anti-patterns
56
57- Treating HR as interchangeable with Organization Studies (EGOS), JMS, AMJ (US hypothesis-testing), or Organization (critical-only) — see the archetype table
58- Sending a paper whose contribution is empirical-only ("we found X") with no theoretical advance — fails the scoping screen
59- Polishing prose before theory, design, and the evidence hierarchy are stable
60- Leaving author-identifying traces (acknowledgements, self-cites in first person, live URLs) in a double-anonymous submission
61- Letting an appendix carry claims the 13k main text must establish
62
63## Routing by paper archetype
64
65HR spans several traditions, and the binding constraint differs by archetype. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
66
67| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
68|-----------|-------------------------|----------|
69| Ethnographic / qualitative process study | data-to-theory transparency + theoretical payoff | `humrel-theory-development` → `humrel-data-analysis` |
70| Critical / reflexive (power, identity, discourse) | sharpening the critique into a *travelling* contribution | `humrel-literature-positioning` → `humrel-contribution-framing` |
71| Quantitative / survey / multilevel | construct validity + theorizing beyond the coefficient | `humrel-methods` → `humrel-data-analysis` |
72| Mixed-methods | integration logic (why both, what each adds) | `humrel-methods` |
73| Theory paper (no new data) | novelty + reach vs. existing organizational theory | `humrel-theory-development` |
74
75## Worked routing example (illustrative)
76
77A user says: "My ethnography of platform couriers is rich, but a reviewer says it reads as 'a vivid case with thin theory' and feels closer to *Work, Employment and Society* than HR." That is two HR pushbacks — *the data-to-theory ladder is invisible* (owned by `humrel-data-analysis`) and *the contribution is empirical not theoretical* (owned by `humrel-contribution-framing`, scoped against siblings in `humrel-literature-positioning`). Route to theory and data first; only once the courier case yields a named, generative mechanism about control and identity at work — not just a labour-process description — do you return to `humrel-writing-style` and `humrel-rebuttal`.
78
79## Minimal decision snippet
80
81```
82if decision_letter_arrived: -> humrel-rebuttal
83elif ready_to_submit: -> humrel-submission
84elif exhibits_unclear: -> humrel-tables-figures
85elif evidence_to_theory_opaque: -> humrel-data-analysis
86elif design_or_rigor_unsettled: -> humrel-methods
87elif claim_or_positioning_fuzzy: -> humrel-contribution-framing / humrel-literature-positioning
88elif theory_thin: -> humrel-theory-development
89else: -> humrel-topic-selection
90```
91
92---
93
94**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Human-Relations-Skills/skills/humrel-workflow/SKILL.md`