Use when situating an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
실행 점수 미검증
설치 방법 보기설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
ASQ readers are organization theorists. They expect you to enter a specific, identifiable conversation and advance it. The literature section is an argument that creates the space for your contribution — not a comprehensive survey.
Steps:
ASQ has a long lineage in organization theory and the sociology of organizations, running back to its 1956 founding by James D. Thompson. Failing to engage the relevant tradition is a common rejection trigger. Many of these traditions were defined or sharpened in ASQ's own pages — so the relevant prior is often an ASQ paper, not an AMJ/SMJ one. Map your puzzle to the canonical lineages where appropriate (verify exact citations yourself):
You need not cite all of these — but you must show command of the relevant lineage and recent ASQ-adjacent work in it.
Cut anything that does not (a) establish the conversation, (b) build the tension, or (c) differentiate your contribution. A tight, argumentative review signals command; a sprawling one signals uncertainty.
【Conversation(s)】the 2–4 streams you join
【Prevailing view】steelmanned summary
【Tension/opening】where it breaks and where your paper enters
【Tradition engaged】which org-theory lineage(s)
【Near-scoops handled】yes/no + how differentiated
【Next step】asq-methods
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.