Menü
Skills in diesem Repository
SkillsMP hat 3.969 Skills aus brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills gesammelt. Öffne einen Skill, um Quelle und Details zu prüfen.
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-SkillsEs werden 40 von 3.969 gesammelten Skills angezeigt.
Use when calibrating expectations for the INFORMS Journal on Computing (IJOC) review cycle — the Area-Editor desk-reject gate, the undisclosed associate editor, single-blind reviewing, decision types, and whether a sibling journal fits better. Sets…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the algorithm or model formulation, its correctness, and its theoretical guarantees are the bottleneck for an INFORMS Journal on Computing (IJOC) manuscript. Pins down formulation, complexity, and what the method provably does before experiments are…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when deciding whether a project is computing-first enough for an INFORMS Journal on Computing (IJOC) submission and which of its 10 technical areas fits. Scopes the contribution to the OR↔computing interface; it does not invent results or citations.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the prose, abstract, or introduction of an INFORMS Journal on Computing (IJOC) manuscript buries the computational advance or misreads the house voice. Makes the method land for an OR-meets-CS readership; it does not change the underlying results.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when turning results into an explicit theoretical contribution for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — the "what new theory do we learn?" statement and the discussion section. Frames the contribution; it does not build the original theory…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the contribution-relative-to-prior-work is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — staking the gap against the right conversation and against sibling journals (AMJ, SMJ, JMS, Org Science). Positions the paper; it does not build…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when drafting the response-to-reviewers for a Journal of Management (JOM) R&R — the point-by-point letter, the editor-first revision strategy, handling masked-reviewer conflicts, and staying within the 50-page limit across rounds. Drafts and structures…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Journal of Management (JOM) editorial and masked-review process — desk screening, the developmental R&R culture, the Review Issue track, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process; it does…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the theoretical argument is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — building constructs, mechanisms, boundary conditions, and a priori hypotheses (or a review's organizing framework). Constructs the theory; it does not run the…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when scoping the question and choosing the article type for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — empirical vs. meta-analysis vs. systematic review, and which management subfield it speaks to. Locks fit; it does not build the theory…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when deciding which jmgmt-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Journal of Management (JOM) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the prose, introduction, or abstract is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management (JOM) manuscript — the theory-forward intro, the 250-word abstract, the 15-word title, APA voice, and enforcing the 50-page (inclusive) limit. Polishes the writing; it…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the "so what for management theory and practice" is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — sharpening the one-sentence contribution and the implications. Crystallises the claim; it does not build the theory…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when positioning the contribution against the literature for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — locating the paper in a named theoretical conversation and showing what it adds. Stakes the contribution; it does not build the mechanism…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when drafting the response-to-reviewers and revision for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) R&R — turning a developmental, often multi-round decision letter into a point-by-point response that satisfies the handling editor. Drafts the rebuttal; it does…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) editorial and peer-review process — desk screening, double-blind developmental review, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the theoretical argument is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — building a mechanism and deriving hypotheses a priori, OR abstracting grounded constructs and propositions from qualitative data. Constructs the theory…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when scoping or stress-testing whether a research question fits the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) — a phenomenon-grounded management-theory question, quantitative or qualitative. Decides fit and framing direction; it does not build the theory…
Quellsprache: Englisch
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.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when prose and structure are the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — landing the abstract and intro, sustaining a theory-forward narrative, and meeting house conventions (Harvard refs, UK/US English, 200-word abstract).…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the one-sentence "so what" is the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — converting solid results into an explicit advance for innovation theory/evidence that usually carries a policy or managerial implication. Frames the claim; it does…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when staking the contribution against the innovation-studies literature for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — anchoring in the RP/SPRU canon and showing a genuine gap rather than an incremental replication. Positions the paper; it does not build the…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when drafting the response to a Research Policy (RP) decision letter — converting double-blind referee and handling-editor comments into a point-by-point response and a revision plan that protects the innovation-studies contribution. Builds the response…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when calibrating expectations and choreography for the Research Policy (RP) review cycle — the double-blind process, the out-of-scope desk screen, handling-editor routing, the Research Note option, and what RP referees reward versus reject. Sets…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the conceptual argument is the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — building an innovation-studies mechanism or framework that an interdisciplinary readership will accept as a contribution. Builds the theory; it does not run the…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when scoping or sanity-checking the research question for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — deciding whether it is a genuine innovation-studies question RP owns versus an economics/strategy paper that will desk-reject as out of scope. Frames the…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when deciding which respol-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic through rebuttal for a Research Policy (RP) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when prose and structure are the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — making an interdisciplinary innovation-studies argument land for economists, management scholars, and policymakers at once. Polishes the writing; it does not change the…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when results exist but the "so what for accounting" is thin for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — turning estimates or propositions into one sharp, defensible accounting contribution. Sharpens the claim; it does not position against the…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the contribution relative to the accounting frontier and the sibling journals is fuzzy for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — joining the right disclosure/earnings/valuation conversation and stating the marginal contribution.…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) revise-and-resubmit has arrived and you must plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — resolving the editor's first-order concerns (identification, the channel, measurement, or the model) before…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the economic mechanism, analytical model, or testable predictions are the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — articulating the friction behind an accounting effect or building a parsimonious disclosure/contracting model…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when scoping or pressure-testing the research question for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — confirming it is a contribution-driven financial-accounting question that fits RAST's archival/analytical/experimental lanes. Locks the question;…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when deciding which revacc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when the prose is the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — front-loading the contribution, writing an abstract and introduction that land, and adopting the accounting house voice. Polishes the manuscript; it does not sharpen…
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when staking an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's contribution against the live policy debate and the adjacent academic literature. Sharpens the policy-and-academic positioning; it does not invent evidence or citations.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when responding to Economic Policy (EP) discussant comments and the panel debate — revising the paper for the camera-ready version that publishes alongside those comments. Plans the post-panel response; it does not invent evidence or citations.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when preparing an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript for its panel review — the two named discussants and the conference debate that replace standard anonymous refereeing. War-games the discussants; it does not invent evidence or citations.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when assembling the data, code, and verification materials for an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript so results are accessible and replicable to the journal's standard. Builds the verification-ready package; it does not invent evidence or citations.
Quellsprache: Englisch
Use when building or tightening the conceptual frame or quantitative model that disciplines an Economic Policy (EP) manuscript's policy logic. Keeps the model minimal-but-honest and legible to a policy audience; it does not invent evidence or citations.
Quellsprache: Englisch