| name | io-workflow |
| description | Use as the entry point for any International Organization (IO) manuscript. Routes to the right IO sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which article type (Research Article, Research Note, Essay) fits. IO is the IR-specialist flagship, so the router's first job is to confirm the paper is an international-relations contribution, not a domestic-politics paper with an international label. It dispatches; it does not draft content. |
IO Workflow Router (io-workflow)
The orchestrator for an International Organization submission. Figure out the stage and the article
type, then send the user to the matching skill. IO is the leading journal of international
relations — the router's first job is to make sure the international or cross-border phenomenon is a
major cause or effect, and that the paper offers a generalizable theory of international politics.
When to trigger
- Starting a new IO paper and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Deciding among Research Article / Research Note / Essay
- Returning with a decision letter (route to
io-rebuttal)
First question: is it really an IR paper, and which type?
| Situation | Article type | Route to |
|---|
| Full original IR study, generalizable theory | Research Article (≤ 14,000 words) | normal pipeline below |
| Focused single IR contribution | Research Note (≤ 8,000 words) | normal pipeline, tighter scope |
| Conceptual / agenda-setting / debate piece | Essay (≤ 10,000 words) | io-theory-building + io-literature-positioning |
| International phenomenon is only backdrop | (off-fit) | back to io-topic-selection — re-center the international level |
If the international or cross-border phenomenon is not a major cause or effect, the paper is not
yet an IO paper — fix that before anything else.
Routing map (stage → skill)
IR fit / theory worth it? → io-topic-selection
Where does it sit in IR debates? → io-literature-positioning
What's the IR theory? → io-theory-building
Is the international design sound? → io-research-design
Are the analyses sound? → io-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear? → io-tables-figures
Does it read for IR scholars? → io-writing-style
Repro package + DAS verifiable? → io-transparency-and-data-policy
How will it be judged? → io-review-process
Ready to submit? → io-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → io-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data-policy → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: IR papers usually loop theory ↔ design ↔ analysis several times before writing-style.
Calibrating to the IO house culture
Before routing, internalize what makes International Organization distinct from the generalist
flagships. IO is the leading outlet in international relations and international political economy,
published by Cambridge University Press for the IO Foundation. Its culture is theory-forward: a clever
identification strategy with a thin argument lands worse here than at an econometrics-driven venue,
because editors and referees reward a portable theory of world politics — institutions, cooperation and
conflict, security, the global economy — over a stand-alone result. IO is also methodologically
plural: formal, quantitative, and qualitative work all appear, so never push a qualitatively strong
paper toward a quantitative reframe to "fit." Finally, IO sets a broad-significance bar — the
contribution should reshape how IR scholars understand a general phenomenon, not just document one
institution. Hold these three anchors as you dispatch.
Lifecycle-to-skill decision table
| You can say… | Bottleneck | Send to |
|---|
| "I have data but no general IR claim" | theory deficit | io-theory-building |
| "Reviewers say I missed the IR debate" | positioning | io-literature-positioning |
| "Is my treaty/membership design causal?" | identification | io-research-design |
| "I'm over the word cap (exhibits count)" | length | io-writing-style + io-tables-figures |
| "Conditional acceptance — they want code" | pre-final verification | io-transparency-and-data-policy |
| "A rationalist and constructivist referee clash" | R&R adjudication | io-rebuttal |
Worked routing vignette (illustrative)
A scholar arrives with a finished panel showing that states ratifying a human-rights treaty later report
better compliance, and wants to "submit to IO next week." The router does not jump to io-submission.
The first diagnostic is the IR-fit screen: is the institution a major cause, or is the correlation
driven by selection into ratification? Because the causal claim is unestablished and the general
mechanism is unstated, the router sends them back through io-topic-selection → io-theory-building →
io-research-design (a ratification-timing design that breaks selection) before any submission step.
Routing the empirics-first instinct into theory-first order is the router's core job at IO.
Anti-patterns
- Treating IO like a generalist political-science journal (APSR/AJPS/JOP) — IO wants an IR theory, not a domestic-politics result with international data attached
- Leading with data when the contribution should be generalizable theory about international politics
- Leaving the reproducibility package and Data Availability Statement until acceptance — IO verifies results and formal proofs before final acceptance
- Sending a domestic-comparative paper where the cross-border mechanism is incidental
Output format
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / transparency / review / submit / rebut
【Article type】Research Article / Research Note / Essay
【IR fit】international phenomenon = major cause/effect? [Y/N]
【Route to】io-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
