thedixitjain Journal of Operations Management Workflow (jom-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which jom- skill to use right now* for your JOM manuscript.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JOM — the flagship outlet for original, empirical operations and supply chain management research, published by Wiley on behalf of the Association for Supply Chain Management (ASCM, formerly APICS), established 1980, eight issues a year, on the FT50 list. JOM's defining bar is that operations must be at the heart of the research question, not just in the context, and the work must be empirical — "it is the observation that renders the research empirical." JOM explicitly does not publish purely analytical models or optimization techniques ("these belong in operations research, industrial engineering, or analytical OM journals"). Reviewers and Department Editors ask "is the operations phenomenon real and observed?" as insistently as "is the theory advanced?"
Editorial structure: Co-Editors-in-Chief Elliot Bendoly (Ohio State) and Rogelio Oliva (Texas A&M); the journal routes every submission to one of 12 Departments, each with its own Department Editors. Verify the current masthead and roster before relying on names. Fees, the APC, abstract limit, and exact length rules change — confirm on the ASCM/JOM and Wiley pages (some are 待核实 in
resources/official-source-map.md).
When to trigger
- "What should I do next?" with a half-built empirical OM manuscript
- You have operational data and a result but no clear OM-theoretic story
- A reviewer/Department Editor pushes on "is operations really the heart of this?" and you are unsure which stage is the bottleneck
- You received a JOM decision letter (R&R or reject-and-resubmit) and need to switch into response mode
- You are unsure which of the 12 Departments should route your paper
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea is vague; unclear if operations is the heart and if it is JOM-fit | jom-topic-selection |
| Hypotheses are descriptive; no OM mechanism (behavioral/operational logic) | jom-theory-development |
| Front end reads as a gap; the OM/SCM conversation is not engaged | jom-literature-positioning |
| Design may not match (survey vs archival vs field vs experiment vs IBR) | jom-methods |
| Have data; unsure about measurement, CMB, endogeneity, estimator | jom-data-analysis |
| Results exist but the "so what for OM theory and practice" is thin | jom-contribution-framing |
| Tables/figures cluttered, off APA/house style, or not self-explanatory | jom-tables-figures |
| Prose is jargon-heavy, passive, or buries the operations argument | jom-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need Department routing, cover-letter protocol, checklist | jom-submission |
| Want to understand the asymmetric double-anonymous review before/after submit | jom-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need to plan and draft the point-by-point response | jom-rebuttal |
Default order
jom-topic-selection → jom-theory-development → jom-literature-positioning → jom-methods → jom-data-analysis → jom-contribution-framing → jom-tables-figures → jom-writing-style → jom-submission → jom-review-process → jom-rebuttal
Bottleneck-to-skill diagnosis
When the next step is unclear, diagnose from the symptom rather than the calendar. The table reads the most common JOM-specific failure signals; route accordingly and confirm scope questions against the current author guidelines.
| Symptom in the manuscript | Likely bottleneck | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewers ask "is operations the heart?" | Scope/fit | jom-topic-selection |
| Hypotheses describe but never explain operationally | Missing mechanism | jom-theory-development |
| Measurement or endogeneity concerns dominate the letter | Method-check exposure | jom-data-analysis |
| "Promising but contribution unclear" | Framing | jom-contribution-framing |
| Returned before review | Submission-package gap | jom-submission |
Worked vignette: routing a stalled manuscript
A team has plant-survey data and a significant result but a decision letter saying the contribution is unclear and the measures are thin (illustrative). The router reads two bottlenecks: a method-check exposure on construct validity and a framing gap on operations-as-heart. Sequence: first jom-data-analysis to firm up the measurement model, then jom-contribution-framing to name the OM belief that changes, and only then jom-rebuttal to assemble the response. Jumping straight to the rebuttal would paper over the decisive measurement issue that the Empirical Research Methods gate will not let pass.
Common routing mistakes
- Treating a contribution complaint as a tables problem and polishing exhibits instead of reframing.
- Entering rebuttal mode before the underlying method-check issue is actually fixed.
- Picking a Department late instead of letting it sharpen the question early.
Output format
【Stage detected】...
【Why】(operations-as-heart? empirical? theory advance?) ...
【Use this skill next】jom-<role>
【After that】...
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Journal-of-Operations-Management-Skills/skills/jom-workflow/SKILL.md