Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

asq-tables-figures

Use when building and refining exhibits for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — qualitative data structures and data-to-theory tables, process models, and quantitative tables. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis behind them.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.4 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Tables & Figures (asq-tables-figures)

When to trigger

  • Your exhibits are dense, generic, or do not reveal the data structure
  • Qualitative: you have quotes but no data-to-theory table or process model figure
  • Quantitative: tables are over-stuffed or hide the result that matters
  • Reviewers cannot reconstruct how your data became theory from the exhibits

Principle: exhibits do theoretical work

At ASQ, exhibits are part of the argument, not decoration. A reader should be able to grasp the contribution from the figures and tables alone. Build them in tandem with asq-data-analysis.

Qualitative exhibits

  • Data structure figure. Show first-order codes → second-order themes → aggregate dimensions (Gioia-style), or an equivalent cross-case/process display. This is often the single most scrutinized exhibit in an inductive ASQ paper.
  • Data-to-theory table. Columns: theoretical construct/dimension → representative quotes/evidence (proof quotes) → analytic note. This makes the inference auditable.
  • Process model figure. For process theory, a clean phase/feedback diagram with arrows that mean something (sequence, transformation, feedback), labeled with your constructs.
  • Case/site table. Comparative table of cases on key dimensions (for multiple-case designs).
  • Power quotes live in the body; proof quotes live in tables — keep the body readable.

Quantitative exhibits

  • Descriptives & correlations table (means, SD, correlations) — standard and complete.
  • Main regression table. Build models cumulatively (baseline → controls → focal effects → interactions). Avoid wall-to-wall columns; show the models that test the theory.
  • Interaction plots. Plot significant moderations; a marginal-effects/simple-slopes figure beats a coefficient alone.
  • Robustness can be summarized compactly or moved to an appendix; the body shows the result that matters.

Craft standards (both)

  • Each exhibit is self-contained: title, units, notes, significance conventions, and source defined in the note.
  • Figures are clean and legible in grayscale; no chart-junk; consistent fonts and labels.
  • Number and reference every exhibit in text; the text interprets, it does not merely repeat the table.
  • Keep exhibits anonymized for ASQ's double-blind review (no author-revealing site names or acknowledgments in figure sources).
  • Follow APA style for citations in notes (ASQ adopted APA in January 2025), with SAGE table conventions; manuscripts go in via ScholarOne (Word or PDF, 12-pt Times New Roman, double-spaced). Exhibits count toward length, and ASQ rewards "high intellectual value per page" — keep the whole manuscript near the suggested 35–45 pages of text (over-long files are unsubmitted before review). Verify current details at journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/asq.

Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)

Generate exhibits from the fitted result, not by retyping numbers (the usual source of body-vs-appendix drift). Full map: execution-with-mcp. ASQ wants a clean causal or well-identified observational design behind an organizational-theory contribution; reduced-form estimation fits the chain below, interpretive work does not.

  • Tables: etable (multi-model columns) or did_summary_to_latex straight from the result_id.
  • Figures: plot_from_result / enhanced_event_study_plot / event_study_table — axis units and the SE/clustering note baked in.
  • Every note names the estimator + clustering and states the effect size in interpretable units.

See a full fitted-result → exhibit chain in the JF execution walkthrough.

Checklist

  • Qual: data-structure figure present and faithful to the coding
  • Qual: data-to-theory / evidence table lets a reader audit the inference
  • Qual: process model figure (if process theory) with meaningful arrows
  • Quant: descriptives + correlations table complete
  • Quant: main table built cumulatively; interactions plotted
  • Every exhibit is self-contained (title, notes, units, significance key)
  • Text interprets exhibits rather than restating them
  • Formatting matches current ASQ/SAGE guidelines (verify on official page)

Anti-patterns

  • A "wall of coefficients" table where the key result is buried among dozens of columns
  • Qualitative papers with quotes but no data-structure figure or evidence table
  • Process figures whose arrows have no defined meaning
  • Exhibits that require the body text to be interpretable (not self-contained)
  • Chart-junk, illegible grayscale, inconsistent decimals/labels
  • Reporting interaction coefficients without a plot

Output format

【Exhibit list】figures + tables planned
【Data-to-theory exhibit】present? (qual) / cumulative main table? (quant)
【Process model】present? (if process theory)
【Self-containment】all notes/units/keys complete?
【Formatting】matches ASQ/SAGE guidelines (verify)
【Next step】asq-writing-style

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill