Organization Studies Workflow Router (orgstud-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It tells you which orgstud- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Organization Studies (OS) — the flagship European organization-theory journal published by SAGE for the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS), founded 1980. OS rewards papers that make a genuine theoretical contribution to organization studies — institutional theory, process and practice theory, sensemaking, power and critique, sociological and historical approaches to organizing. It is distinctively strong on qualitative, processual, and theoretically ambitious work and prizes conceptual depth over hypothesis-counting.
Operational tells that you are at OS and not a sibling: review is double-anonymized (a separate, identity-bearing title page; the manuscript itself anonymized); the cap is 13,000 words including references and appendices; the abstract is unstructured, ≤300 words; you supply 5–7 keywords, four drawn from the OS ScholarOne keyword list; submission is via ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies). The journal sits on the FT50 generalist-management list. Editors-in-chief are Renate Meyer and Paolo Quattrone (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Re-verify volatile specifics on the SAGE OS and EGOS pages.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on an OS-bound manuscript
- A draft needs its current bottleneck diagnosed
- Work is ping-ponging between framing, fieldwork/analysis, exhibits, and the response letter
- An OS decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
- The team is weighing OS against ASQ, Organization Science, JMS, or AMR
Routing table
| Current symptom |
Next skill |
| Phenomenon is interesting but its fit with OS's theory-first scope is unclear |
orgstud-topic-selection |
| The theoretical engine (mechanism / process model) is thin or relabels the finding |
orgstud-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. the conversation OS owns is fuzzy or undersold |
orgstud-literature-positioning |
| Design and its match to the question (qualitative/process/quantitative) need work |
orgstud-methods |
| Coding, the data structure, or estimation/robustness need execution |
orgstud-data-analysis |
| The one-sentence theoretical contribution is not sharp |
orgstud-contribution-framing |
| Data structures, process figures, or tables are hard to read |
orgstud-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the argument; the European theoretical register is missing |
orgstud-writing-style |
| Ready to submit via ScholarOne; need a preflight on anonymization/format |
orgstud-submission |
| Want to understand the developmental review cycle / decision odds |
orgstud-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy |
orgstud-rebuttal |
Default order
orgstud-topic-selection — lock the theoretically generative phenomenonorgstud-theory-development — build the mechanism / process modelorgstud-literature-positioning — stake the contribution in OS's conversationorgstud-methods — design (qualitative/process/historical/quantitative) that fits the questionorgstud-data-analysis — make the data-to-theory ladder visibleorgstud-contribution-framing — sharpen the one-sentence theoretical claimorgstud-tables-figures — data structures, process models, exhibitsorgstud-writing-style — the discursive European register (abstract + intro last)orgstud-submission — ScholarOne preflight (anonymization, word cap, keywords)orgstud-review-process — calibrate the developmental cycleorgstud-rebuttal — after the R&R
orgstud-writing-style is late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before theory and evidence settle. Unlike a variance-template journal, at OS the theory is the deliverable, so orgstud-theory-development and orgstud-contribution-framing are the load-bearing steps, not the methods or tables.
Routing by paper archetype
OS spans several theory-driven 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 |
| inductive/process ethnography |
data-to-theory transparency + process model |
orgstud-theory-development → orgstud-data-analysis |
| institutional / field-level study |
what is novel for neo-institutional theory |
orgstud-literature-positioning |
| critical / power / reflexive |
the critical theoretical contribution, not just critique |
orgstud-theory-development |
| conceptual / essay (no new data) |
a clearly novel theoretical move readers can use |
orgstud-contribution-framing |
| quantitative organization theory |
mechanism the design illuminates (not the estimator) |
orgstud-theory-development → orgstud-methods |
Worked routing example (illustrative)
A user says: "My ethnography of a merger is rich, but a reviewer says it 'reads like a case report' and 'doesn't move institutional theory.'" That is two OS pushbacks — the data-to-theory ladder is invisible (owned by orgstud-data-analysis) and the contribution to the institutional conversation is unstated (owned by orgstud-contribution-framing with positioning in orgstud-literature-positioning). Build the Gioia-style data structure and a process model first, then name the theoretical move; only then return to orgstud-writing-style.
Anti-patterns
- Treating OS as interchangeable with ASQ (US sociology-of-organizations), Organization Science (US, multi-paradigm + modeling), JMS (pluralist), or AMR (theory-only, no data)
- Leading with a clean identification design as if the estimator were the contribution — at OS the theory is the contribution
- Polishing prose before the mechanism and evidence hierarchy are stable
- Importing a top-five-economics or US hypothesis-template structure into a European theory-first outlet
- Asserting facts (editor, word cap, fees) not in
resources/official-source-map.md or not marked 检索于 2026-06
Output format
【Target】Organization Studies (SAGE / EGOS)
【Current bottleneck】fit / theory / positioning / design / evidence / framing / exhibits / style / submission / revision
【Archetype】inductive-process / institutional / critical / conceptual / quantitative
【Next skill】<one orgstud-* skill>
【Reason】why this is the binding constraint
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 / 待核实
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Organization-Studies-Skills/skills/orgstud-workflow/SKILL.md
1---2name: orgstud-workflow3description: Use when deciding which orgstud-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for an Organization Studies (OS) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.4---5
6
7# Organization Studies Workflow Router (orgstud-workflow)
8
9## Overview
10
11This is the router. It tells you **which orgstud-* skill to use at the current stage** of a manuscript aimed at *Organization Studies* (OS) — the flagship **European** organization-theory journal published by **SAGE for the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS)**, founded 1980. OS rewards papers that make a **genuine theoretical contribution to organization studies** — institutional theory, process and practice theory, sensemaking, power and critique, sociological and historical approaches to organizing. It is distinctively strong on **qualitative, processual, and theoretically ambitious** work and prizes conceptual depth over hypothesis-counting.
12
13Operational tells that you are at OS and not a sibling: review is **double-anonymized** (a separate, identity-bearing title page; the manuscript itself anonymized); the cap is **13,000 words including references and appendices**; the abstract is **unstructured, ≤300 words**; you supply **5–7 keywords, four drawn from the OS ScholarOne keyword list**; submission is via **ScholarOne** (`mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies`). The journal sits on the **FT50** generalist-management list. Editors-in-chief are **Renate Meyer and Paolo Quattrone** (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Re-verify volatile specifics on the SAGE OS and EGOS pages.
14
15## When to trigger
16
17- The user asks "what should I do next?" on an OS-bound manuscript
18- A draft needs its current bottleneck diagnosed
19- Work is ping-ponging between framing, fieldwork/analysis, exhibits, and the response letter
20- An OS decision letter arrived and the user needs to switch into revision mode
21- The team is weighing OS against ASQ, Organization Science, JMS, or AMR
22
23## Routing table
24
25| Current symptom | Next skill |
26|-----------------|------------|
27| Phenomenon is interesting but its fit with OS's theory-first scope is unclear | `orgstud-topic-selection` |
28| The theoretical engine (mechanism / process model) is thin or relabels the finding | `orgstud-theory-development` |
29| Contribution vs. the conversation OS owns is fuzzy or undersold | `orgstud-literature-positioning` |
30| Design and its match to the question (qualitative/process/quantitative) need work | `orgstud-methods` |
31| Coding, the data structure, or estimation/robustness need execution | `orgstud-data-analysis` |
32| The one-sentence theoretical contribution is not sharp | `orgstud-contribution-framing` |
33| Data structures, process figures, or tables are hard to read | `orgstud-tables-figures` |
34| Prose buries the argument; the European theoretical register is missing | `orgstud-writing-style` |
35| Ready to submit via ScholarOne; need a preflight on anonymization/format | `orgstud-submission` |
36| Want to understand the developmental review cycle / decision odds | `orgstud-review-process` |
37| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | `orgstud-rebuttal` |
38
39## Default order
40
411. `orgstud-topic-selection` — lock the theoretically generative phenomenon
422. `orgstud-theory-development` — build the mechanism / process model
433. `orgstud-literature-positioning` — stake the contribution in OS's conversation
444. `orgstud-methods` — design (qualitative/process/historical/quantitative) that fits the question
455. `orgstud-data-analysis` — make the data-to-theory ladder visible
466. `orgstud-contribution-framing` — sharpen the one-sentence theoretical claim
477. `orgstud-tables-figures` — data structures, process models, exhibits
488. `orgstud-writing-style` — the discursive European register (abstract + intro last)
499. `orgstud-submission` — ScholarOne preflight (anonymization, word cap, keywords)
5010. `orgstud-review-process` — calibrate the developmental cycle
5111. `orgstud-rebuttal` — after the R&R
52
53> `orgstud-writing-style` is late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before theory and evidence settle. Unlike a variance-template journal, at OS the *theory* is the deliverable, so `orgstud-theory-development` and `orgstud-contribution-framing` are the load-bearing steps, not the methods or tables.
54
55## Routing by paper archetype
56
57OS spans several theory-driven archetypes, and the binding constraint differs by archetype. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
58
59| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
60|-----------|-------------------------|----------|
61| inductive/process ethnography | data-to-theory transparency + process model | `orgstud-theory-development` → `orgstud-data-analysis` |
62| institutional / field-level study | what is novel for neo-institutional theory | `orgstud-literature-positioning` |
63| critical / power / reflexive | the critical theoretical contribution, not just critique | `orgstud-theory-development` |
64| conceptual / essay (no new data) | a clearly novel theoretical move readers can use | `orgstud-contribution-framing` |
65| quantitative organization theory | mechanism the design illuminates (not the estimator) | `orgstud-theory-development` → `orgstud-methods` |
66
67## Worked routing example (illustrative)
68
69A user says: "My ethnography of a merger is rich, but a reviewer says it 'reads like a case report' and 'doesn't move institutional theory.'" That is two OS pushbacks — *the data-to-theory ladder is invisible* (owned by `orgstud-data-analysis`) and *the contribution to the institutional conversation is unstated* (owned by `orgstud-contribution-framing` with positioning in `orgstud-literature-positioning`). Build the Gioia-style data structure and a process model first, then name the theoretical move; only then return to `orgstud-writing-style`.
70
71## Anti-patterns
72
73- Treating OS as interchangeable with **ASQ** (US sociology-of-organizations), **Organization Science** (US, multi-paradigm + modeling), **JMS** (pluralist), or **AMR** (theory-only, no data)
74- Leading with a clean identification design as if the estimator were the contribution — at OS the *theory* is the contribution
75- Polishing prose before the mechanism and evidence hierarchy are stable
76- Importing a top-five-economics or US hypothesis-template structure into a European theory-first outlet
77- Asserting facts (editor, word cap, fees) not in `resources/official-source-map.md` or not marked 检索于 2026-06
78
79## Output format
80
81```text
82【Target】Organization Studies (SAGE / EGOS)
83【Current bottleneck】fit / theory / positioning / design / evidence / framing / exhibits / style / submission / revision
84【Archetype】inductive-process / institutional / critical / conceptual / quantitative
85【Next skill】<one orgstud-* skill>
86【Reason】why this is the binding constraint
87【Source check】official facts verified or marked 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 / 待核实
88```
89
90---
91
92**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Organization-Studies-Skills/skills/orgstud-workflow/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain