JMS Workflow Router (jms-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It tells you which jms- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) — the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies (SAMS) journal published by Wiley, an internationally oriented, European-rooted outlet for management and organization studies: strategy, organization theory, entrepreneurship, innovation, OB, and the broader study of management. JMS's defining trait is methodological pluralism: it publishes strong quantitative and strong qualitative / interpretive / process / theory-building work, plus Point–CounterPoint debates and JMS Says essays. What earns space is a genuine theoretical contribution engaged with an organizational phenomenon — the "so what for management theory and practice."
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JMS. Tells that you are at JMS and not a sibling: double-blind review with full anonymisation; Harvard author-date referencing; a typical length of 10,000–13,000 words inclusive of tables/figures/references; submission via ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmstudies); editorial office at Durham University; and a house culture that treats a rigorous qualitative case or process study as first-class rather than second-best. Mark volatile specifics (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a JMS-bound paper
- A draft needs its current bottleneck diagnosed
- Work is ping-ponging between theory, design, evidence, framing, writing, and the response letter
- A JMS decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
Routing table
| Current symptom |
Next skill |
| Topic feels narrow / not clearly a management-theory question |
jms-topic-selection |
| The theoretical mechanism / propositions are thin or borrowed |
jms-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. the conversation is fuzzy or oversold |
jms-literature-positioning |
| Design (qual/quant/multi-method) does not fit the theory |
jms-methods |
| Estimation, coding, or trustworthiness of the analysis is weak |
jms-data-analysis |
| The "so what for theory & practice" is not sharp |
jms-contribution-framing |
| Tables/figures (or a data structure / process figure) are dense |
jms-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the idea; abstract/intro do not land |
jms-writing-style |
| Anonymisation, Harvard refs, word count, portal preflight |
jms-submission |
| Want to understand the developmental review timeline / desk-reject odds |
jms-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy |
jms-rebuttal |
Default order
jms-topic-selection — lock a phenomenon-grounded management questionjms-theory-development — build the mechanism / propositions (or hypotheses)jms-literature-positioning — stake the contribution to a live conversationjms-methods — match design to the question (qual / quant / multi-method)jms-data-analysis — estimation or qualitative trustworthinessjms-contribution-framing — sharpen the "so what for theory & practice"jms-tables-figures — exhibits, data tables, process / data-structure figuresjms-writing-style — make the idea land (abstract + intro last)jms-submission — ScholarOne preflight (anonymisation, Harvard, word count)jms-review-process — calibrate the developmental, multi-round culturejms-rebuttal — after the R&R
jms-writing-style is a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the theory and evidence settle. For qualitative work, theory and data co-evolve, so cycle 2↔4↔5 more than once.
Routing by paper archetype
JMS spans four archetypes, and the binding constraint differs by archetype. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype |
Likely first bottleneck |
Enter at |
| qualitative / grounded theory-building (cases, ethnography) |
data-to-construct transparency + theoretical model from data |
jms-theory-development → jms-methods |
| process / longitudinal (how things unfold over time) |
temporal bracketing, mechanism, narrative-to-theory |
jms-theory-development → jms-data-analysis |
| quantitative hypothesis-testing (survey / archival) |
endogeneity, CMB, a non-bald mechanism |
jms-methods → jms-data-analysis |
| Point–CounterPoint / review essay / JMS Says |
a contestable claim + a conversation worth moving |
jms-contribution-framing → jms-literature-positioning |
Worked routing example (illustrative)
A user says: "My inductive study of how family firms professionalise is rich, but a reviewer says the contribution is 'a nice description, not theory,' and the data structure is hard to follow." That is two JMS pushbacks — no abstracted theoretical model and opaque data-to-theory chain — owned by jms-theory-development (abstract the first-order codes into second-order themes and aggregate dimensions, then a process model) and jms-tables-figures (a Gioia-style data-structure figure plus a representative-quotes table). Route to theory first; only once the emergent model is crisp do you return to exhibits and jms-contribution-framing.
Anti-patterns
- Treating JMS like AMJ (US hypothetico-deductive default), Organization Studies (more EGOS / process-theoretical), Journal of Management (SMA, US general/meta-analytic), or SMJ (strategy-economics) — JMS is the SAMS pluralist outlet that genuinely welcomes strong qualitative work
- Polishing prose before the theoretical contribution and evidence hierarchy are stable
- Forcing a qualitative study into a hypotheses-and-controls template, or judging it by quant criteria
- Letting an online appendix carry claims the 13,000-word main text must establish
Output format
【Target】Journal of Management Studies (JMS)
【Archetype】qualitative / process / quantitative / Point-CounterPoint
【Current bottleneck】topic / theory / positioning / design / evidence / framing / exhibits / style / submission / revision
【Next skill】<one jms-* skill>
【Reason】why this step is the binding constraint
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 待核实
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Journal-of-Management-Studies-Skills/skills/jms-workflow/SKILL.md
1---2name: jms-workflow3description: Use when deciding which jms-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.4---567# JMS Workflow Router (jms-workflow)89## Overview1011This is the router. It tells you **which jms-* skill to use at the current stage** of a manuscript aimed at the *Journal of Management Studies* (JMS) — the **Society for the Advancement of Management Studies (SAMS)** journal published by **Wiley**, an internationally oriented, European-rooted outlet for management and organization studies: strategy, organization theory, entrepreneurship, innovation, OB, and the broader study of management. JMS's defining trait is **methodological pluralism**: it publishes strong quantitative *and* strong qualitative / interpretive / process / theory-building work, plus **Point–CounterPoint** debates and **JMS Says** essays. What earns space is a genuine **theoretical contribution** engaged with an organizational phenomenon — the "so what for management theory and practice."1213Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JMS. Tells that you are at JMS and not a sibling: **double-blind review** with full anonymisation; **Harvard author-date** referencing; a typical length of **10,000–13,000 words inclusive of tables/figures/references**; submission via **ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmstudies)**; editorial office at **Durham University**; and a house culture that treats a rigorous qualitative case or process study as first-class rather than second-best. Mark volatile specifics `(检索于 2026-06；以官网为准)`.1415## When to trigger1617- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a JMS-bound paper18- A draft needs its current bottleneck diagnosed19- Work is ping-ponging between theory, design, evidence, framing, writing, and the response letter20- A JMS decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode2122## Routing table2324| Current symptom | Next skill |25|-----------------|------------|26| Topic feels narrow / not clearly a management-theory question | `jms-topic-selection` |27| The theoretical mechanism / propositions are thin or borrowed | `jms-theory-development` |28| Contribution vs. the conversation is fuzzy or oversold | `jms-literature-positioning` |29| Design (qual/quant/multi-method) does not fit the theory | `jms-methods` |30| Estimation, coding, or trustworthiness of the analysis is weak | `jms-data-analysis` |31| The "so what for theory & practice" is not sharp | `jms-contribution-framing` |32| Tables/figures (or a data structure / process figure) are dense | `jms-tables-figures` |33| Prose buries the idea; abstract/intro do not land | `jms-writing-style` |34| Anonymisation, Harvard refs, word count, portal preflight | `jms-submission` |35| Want to understand the developmental review timeline / desk-reject odds | `jms-review-process` |36| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | `jms-rebuttal` |3738## Default order39401. `jms-topic-selection` — lock a phenomenon-grounded management question412. `jms-theory-development` — build the mechanism / propositions (or hypotheses)423. `jms-literature-positioning` — stake the contribution to a live conversation434. `jms-methods` — match design to the question (qual / quant / multi-method)445. `jms-data-analysis` — estimation or qualitative trustworthiness456. `jms-contribution-framing` — sharpen the "so what for theory & practice"467. `jms-tables-figures` — exhibits, data tables, process / data-structure figures478. `jms-writing-style` — make the idea land (abstract + intro last)489. `jms-submission` — ScholarOne preflight (anonymisation, Harvard, word count)4910. `jms-review-process` — calibrate the developmental, multi-round culture5011. `jms-rebuttal` — after the R&R5152> `jms-writing-style` is a late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before the theory and evidence settle. For qualitative work, theory and data co-evolve, so cycle 2↔4↔5 more than once.5354## Routing by paper archetype5556JMS spans four archetypes, and the binding constraint differs by archetype. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.5758| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |59|-----------|-------------------------|----------|60| qualitative / grounded theory-building (cases, ethnography) | data-to-construct transparency + theoretical model from data | `jms-theory-development` → `jms-methods` |61| process / longitudinal (how things unfold over time) | temporal bracketing, mechanism, narrative-to-theory | `jms-theory-development` → `jms-data-analysis` |62| quantitative hypothesis-testing (survey / archival) | endogeneity, CMB, a non-bald mechanism | `jms-methods` → `jms-data-analysis` |63| Point–CounterPoint / review essay / JMS Says | a contestable claim + a conversation worth moving | `jms-contribution-framing` → `jms-literature-positioning` |6465## Worked routing example (illustrative)6667A user says: "My inductive study of how family firms professionalise is rich, but a reviewer says the contribution is 'a nice description, not theory,' and the data structure is hard to follow." That is two JMS pushbacks — *no abstracted theoretical model* and *opaque data-to-theory chain* — owned by `jms-theory-development` (abstract the first-order codes into second-order themes and aggregate dimensions, then a process model) and `jms-tables-figures` (a Gioia-style data-structure figure plus a representative-quotes table). Route to theory first; only once the emergent model is crisp do you return to exhibits and `jms-contribution-framing`.6869## Anti-patterns7071- Treating JMS like **AMJ** (US hypothetico-deductive default), **Organization Studies** (more EGOS / process-theoretical), **Journal of Management** (SMA, US general/meta-analytic), or **SMJ** (strategy-economics) — JMS is the SAMS pluralist outlet that genuinely welcomes strong qualitative work72- Polishing prose before the theoretical contribution and evidence hierarchy are stable73- Forcing a qualitative study into a hypotheses-and-controls template, or judging it by quant criteria74- Letting an online appendix carry claims the 13,000-word main text must establish7576## Output format7778```text79【Target】Journal of Management Studies (JMS)80【Archetype】qualitative / process / quantitative / Point-CounterPoint81【Current bottleneck】topic / theory / positioning / design / evidence / framing / exhibits / style / submission / revision82【Next skill】<one jms-* skill>83【Reason】why this step is the binding constraint84【Source check】official facts verified or marked 待核实85```8687---8889**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Management-Studies-Skills/skills/jms-workflow/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain