Journal of Operations Management (journal-of-operations-management)
Journal positioning
The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is a leading empirical home for operations and supply-chain management research, with a long tradition of survey-based, behavioral, and theory-driven empirical work. It is OM's empirical flagship in the way M&SOM anchors analytical OM: JOM rewards papers that test or build operations theory with strong primary or secondary data, and it takes construct measurement and research design seriously. This is the OM "JOM" — distinct from the management Journal of Management. The readership is the empirical OM and SCM community.
This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the publisher's JOM site and the editorial submission system.
When to trigger
- The author names JOM (the operations-management journal, not the management Journal of Management) as the venue.
- An empirical, survey-based, behavioral, or theory-testing OM/SCM paper needs an empirical OM flagship.
- A modeling-heavy or descriptive operations paper needs re-framing around an empirical theoretical contribution.
- The author needs JOM's desk-reject risks and a credible OM / MS alternative list before submitting.
Scope & topic fit
- Empirical operations and supply-chain management: sourcing, supplier relationships, operations strategy, quality, and process management.
- Survey-based research with rigorous construct development and measurement.
- Behavioral operations: experiments and field studies on operational decision-making.
- Theory-driven empirical work using secondary/archival data, with identification appropriate to the operations question.
Method & evidence bar
- Theory-driven empirics: the paper must develop and test operations theory, not just report associations; hypotheses (or an inductive model) follow explicit logic.
- Survey work needs validated constructs, attention to common-method bias, reliability/validity evidence, and a defensible sampling frame.
- Archival/secondary-data work needs credible identification (DiD/IV/RDD/experiments) and robustness.
- Behavioral studies need adequate power, sound design, and replicability; measurement and manipulation checks must be reported.
Structure & house style
- The front end frames an operations theoretical gap and develops hypotheses or a grounded model with explicit logic.
- Methods sections are transparent about constructs, measurement, sampling, and identification; appendices carry scales and robustness.
- Results report operational magnitudes and effect sizes, not only significance; the discussion cashes in the theoretical and managerial contribution.
- Writing emphasizes the contribution to OM theory and practice.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Journal of Operations Management author guidelines / information for authors" and follow the current publisher version.
- Re-check word/length limits, abstract format, anonymization for double-blind review, reference style, and structured-abstract requirements if any.
- Re-check the current open-science, data/code availability, and AI-use disclosure policies.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
Common desk-reject triggers
- An atheoretical empirical study ("a survey of practice X in industry Y") with no OM theoretical contribution.
- Weak construct validity, unaddressed common-method bias, or no identification for causal claims.
- A purely analytical / optimization paper with no empirical OM contribution.
- Confusing JOM (operations) with the management Journal of Management in scope and framing.
Re-routing decision
- Analytical OM theory and models (supply chain, inventory, service, revenue management) →
manufacturing-and-service-operations-management.
- Broad OM with society audience, sustainability/healthcare operations, analytical or empirical →
production-and-operations-management.
- Broad management insight or empirics across subfields →
management-science (choose the right department).
- OR methodology / optimization for its own sake →
operations-research; computational → informs-journal-on-computing.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Journal of Operations Management
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does the theory-driven empirical design clear JOM's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <submission system / length / blinding / open-science / data-code>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → English-SocialScience-Journal-Skills/skills/journal-of-operations-management/SKILL.md
1---2name: journal-of-operations-management3description: Use when targeting Journal of Operations Management (JOM) or deciding whether an empirical / survey-based / behavioral operations-and-supply-chain manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.4---5
6
7# Journal of Operations Management (journal-of-operations-management)
8
9## Journal positioning
10
11The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is a leading empirical home for operations and supply-chain management research, with a long tradition of survey-based, behavioral, and theory-driven empirical work. It is OM's empirical flagship in the way M&SOM anchors analytical OM: JOM rewards papers that test or build operations theory with strong primary or secondary data, and it takes construct measurement and research design seriously. This is the OM "JOM" — distinct from the management *Journal of Management*. The readership is the empirical OM and SCM community.
12
13This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the publisher's JOM site and the editorial submission system.
14
15## When to trigger
16
17- The author names JOM (the operations-management journal, not the management *Journal of Management*) as the venue.
18- An empirical, survey-based, behavioral, or theory-testing OM/SCM paper needs an empirical OM flagship.
19- A modeling-heavy or descriptive operations paper needs re-framing around an empirical theoretical contribution.
20- The author needs JOM's desk-reject risks and a credible OM / MS alternative list before submitting.
21
22## Scope & topic fit
23
24- Empirical operations and supply-chain management: sourcing, supplier relationships, operations strategy, quality, and process management.
25- Survey-based research with rigorous construct development and measurement.
26- Behavioral operations: experiments and field studies on operational decision-making.
27- Theory-driven empirical work using secondary/archival data, with identification appropriate to the operations question.
28
29## Method & evidence bar
30
31- Theory-driven empirics: the paper must develop and test operations theory, not just report associations; hypotheses (or an inductive model) follow explicit logic.
32- Survey work needs validated constructs, attention to common-method bias, reliability/validity evidence, and a defensible sampling frame.
33- Archival/secondary-data work needs credible identification (DiD/IV/RDD/experiments) and robustness.
34- Behavioral studies need adequate power, sound design, and replicability; measurement and manipulation checks must be reported.
35
36## Structure & house style
37
38- The front end frames an operations theoretical gap and develops hypotheses or a grounded model with explicit logic.
39- Methods sections are transparent about constructs, measurement, sampling, and identification; appendices carry scales and robustness.
40- Results report operational magnitudes and effect sizes, not only significance; the discussion cashes in the theoretical and managerial contribution.
41- Writing emphasizes the contribution to OM theory and practice.
42
43## Official-submission checklist
44
45- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
46- Search the live site for "Journal of Operations Management author guidelines / information for authors" and follow the current publisher version.
47- Re-check word/length limits, abstract format, anonymization for double-blind review, reference style, and structured-abstract requirements if any.
48- Re-check the current open-science, data/code availability, and AI-use disclosure policies.
49- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
50
51## Pre-submission self-check
52
53- [ ] One sentence stating the contribution to operations-management theory.
54- [ ] Hypotheses (or the inductive model) follow from explicit theoretical logic.
55- [ ] Constructs are validated; common-method bias and identification concerns are addressed to current standards.
56- [ ] Results report operational magnitudes; the discussion states theory and practice contributions.
57- [ ] Length, abstract, anonymization, references, and open-science policy match the current JOM guide.
58
59## Common desk-reject triggers
60
61- An atheoretical empirical study ("a survey of practice X in industry Y") with no OM theoretical contribution.
62- Weak construct validity, unaddressed common-method bias, or no identification for causal claims.
63- A purely analytical / optimization paper with no empirical OM contribution.
64- Confusing JOM (operations) with the management *Journal of Management* in scope and framing.
65
66## Re-routing decision
67
68- Analytical OM theory and models (supply chain, inventory, service, revenue management) → `manufacturing-and-service-operations-management`.
69- Broad OM with society audience, sustainability/healthcare operations, analytical or empirical → `production-and-operations-management`.
70- Broad management insight or empirics across subfields → `management-science` (choose the right department).
71- OR methodology / optimization for its own sake → `operations-research`; computational → `informs-journal-on-computing`.
72
73## Output format
74
75```text
76[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
77[Target] Journal of Operations Management
78[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
79[Method/evidence] <does the theory-driven empirical design clear JOM's bar?>
80[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
81[Official items to re-check] <submission system / length / blinding / open-science / data-code>
82[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
83```
84
85---
86
87**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `English-SocialScience-Journal-Skills/skills/journal-of-operations-management/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain