| name | jom-writing-style |
| description | Use when drafting or polishing prose for a Journal of Operations Management (JOM) empirical manuscript — front-loading the operations argument, writing for both academics and practitioners, keeping APA house style, and meeting JOM's length, formatting, and text-overlap rules. |
Writing Style for JOM (jom-writing-style)
When to trigger
- Prose is jargon-heavy, passive, or buries the operations argument
- The paper reads as academic-only and ignores the practitioner audience
- You need to meet JOM/Wiley formatting, length, and similarity rules
- You are reconciling citations and references to APA
Front-load the operations argument
JOM readers — and ASCM's practitioner audience — want the point early. State the operations phenomenon, the puzzle, and the contribution in the first page, before the literature scaffolding. Use active voice and concrete operational language (cycle time, fill rate, supplier dependence, recall severity) rather than abstract management prose. Because the work must show operations at the heart of the question, every section should keep the operations phenomenon in view.
Write for academics and practitioners
JOM demands both academic and practical relevance. Explain operational constructs plainly, translate statistical results into operational consequences (what changes on the floor, in the network, at the bedside), and avoid theory-for-its-own-sake. A manager and a reviewer should both finish a section knowing why it matters.
Format and length rules
- Length: no strict page limit, but most manuscripts should not exceed ~40 pages; very long manuscripts are returned for streamlining before review — cut, don't pad.
- Manuscript setup: double-spaced, single-column, 12-point font, one-inch margins, numbered pages, no running headers/footers.
- Citation style: APA; any consistent format accepted at first submission (journal style preferred); Wiley applies final reference styling at proof.
Text-overlap discipline (enforced)
JOM screens with iThenticate/CrossCheck and applies stricter rules than a single global threshold: no single source should account for more than ~1% of wording (outside quotations), and an overall similarity score above 15% must be justified in the cover letter. Paraphrase your own prior work and others' text; do not recycle method or literature paragraphs verbatim.
Anti-patterns
- A long literature run-up before the reader learns the operations point.
- Passive, nominalized prose that hides who did what to which process.
- Practitioner relevance asserted but never made concrete.
- Padding to look comprehensive (triggers a streamlining return).
- Self-plagiarism or boilerplate that trips the 1%/15% rules.
Prose moves JOM referees reward
JOM's dual academic-and-practitioner audience shapes what reads well. The contrasts below are practical orientation; confirm length and similarity specifics against the current Wiley/JOM author guidance.
| Writing dimension | JOM-ready | Stalls with reviewers |
|---|
| Opening | Operations phenomenon and puzzle on page one | Long literature run-up before the point |
| Voice | Active, concrete operational nouns (fill rate, cycle time) | Passive, nominalized management abstraction |
| Results prose | Statistics translated into operational consequences | Coefficients reported without operational meaning |
| Practitioner relevance | A specific change on the floor or in the network | Relevance asserted but never made concrete |
| Length | Streamlined to ~40 pages | Padded to look comprehensive |
Return and screen triggers on writing
- Manuscripts padded past the ~40-page guidance are returned for streamlining before review.
- A single source accounting for more than ~1% of wording (outside quotations) trips the text-overlap screen.
- An overall similarity above 15% with no justification in the cover letter.
- Recycled method or literature paragraphs from your own prior work.
Worked vignette: rewriting a buried opening
A draft opens with two pages on the resilience literature before naming its question (illustrative). The rewrite leads with the operational puzzle in the first paragraph: "Plants that invested most heavily in redundancy still suffered the longest disruptions — why?" It then states the contribution (redundancy without flexibility delays recovery) before the literature scaffolding, uses active voice, and translates the key estimate into an operational consequence ("each added buffer day shortened recovery by roughly two days only when sourcing was flexible"). A practitioner reads the operational lever immediately; a reviewer sees the operations argument front-loaded. The same content, reordered, moves from academic-only to JOM's dual-audience standard.
Prose objections reviewers raise, with the fix
- "The operations point is buried." Move the phenomenon, puzzle, and contribution to page one, ahead of the literature.
- "Practitioner relevance is vague." Replace assertions with a concrete operational change tied to your estimates.
- "The manuscript is too long." Cut rather than pad; over-length drafts are streamlined-returned before review.
Output format
【Front-loaded?】operations point in first page ...
【Dual audience】operational consequences stated for practitioners ...
【Length/format】~40 pp, double-spaced 12-pt, APA — compliant? ...
【Similarity risk】single-source <1% / overall <15% or justified ...
【Next step】jom-submission
