跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

amj-topic-selection

Use when scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use amj-theory-development) or position the literature (amj-literature-positioning).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md5.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Topic Selection & AMJ Fit (amj-topic-selection)

When to trigger

  • You have a dataset, a context, or a phenomenon, but no sharp research question
  • You are unsure whether the idea belongs at AMJ vs. its AOM sister AMR (theory-only, no data), or at non-AOM venues ASQ (Cornell/SAGE) or SMJ (Wiley/SMS), or a field journal
  • The question feels like "no one has studied X here" rather than "theory predicts something surprising"
  • You want to pressure-test fit before investing months in data collection

AMJ fit test (all four must pass)

AMJ's mission is "to publish empirical research that tests, extends, or builds management theory and contributes to management practice," and it judges every paper on three criteria: a strong empirical contribution, a meaningful theoretical contribution, and practical relevance. The fit test below operationalizes those criteria.

  1. Phenomenon-grounded but theory-driven. AMJ wants real organizational phenomena (micro OB, macro/strategy, HR, entrepreneurship, organizational theory) examined through a theoretical lens. A purely descriptive or purely methodological paper does not fit.
  2. A theoretical mechanism, not just an empirical association. Ask: why would A affect B, and when? If you can only say "they are correlated," you have a topic, not yet an AMJ paper.
  3. Original data and a defensible design are feasible. AMJ is empirical and welcomes all empirical methods — qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and mixed. If you cannot get suitable data of any of these kinds, it is an AMR idea (theory-only, no data), not an AMJ idea.
  4. Surprise or tension. The strongest AMJ questions sit on a tension between theories, a counterintuitive boundary condition, or an unresolved debate — not a confirmation of the obvious.

Choosing the divisional home

AMJ routes manuscripts to divisional action editors. Knowing your home sharpens framing:

If your core construct is...Likely division / framing
Individuals/teams (motivation, leadership, emotion)Micro / OB
Firms/industries (strategy, performance, M&A)Macro / strategy
Selection, training, turnover, careersHR
New ventures, founders, opportunityEntrepreneurship
Institutions, identity, sensemaking, fieldsOrganization theory / OMT

Frame the question in the vocabulary of its home division and cite that division's recent AMJ papers.

From phenomenon to question

  • State the phenomenon in one sentence (what happens in the world).
  • Name the focal theory you will use as a lens.
  • Write the research question as a why/when statement, not a whether statement.
  • Identify the surprising tension: what does naive intuition or a rival theory predict instead?
  • Draft a one-line "potential theoretical contribution" claim and sanity-check it: would a reviewer learn something new about the theory?

Checklist

  • Question is framed as why/when, with an explicit mechanism, not just whether A predicts B
  • There is a tension, puzzle, or boundary condition (not a confirmation of the obvious)
  • The phenomenon is a genuine organizational/management phenomenon, not a methods demo
  • Suitable original data and a credible design are feasible (else it is an AMR idea)
  • Target division identified; 3–5 recent AMJ papers in that division read and notable
  • One-line theoretical-contribution claim drafted and judged non-trivial

Anti-patterns

  • Gap-spotting: "No study has examined X in context Y." A gap is not a contribution; AMJ wants a theoretical reason the gap matters.
  • Borrowed phenomenon, no theory: an interesting dataset with no theoretical question behind it.
  • Wrong venue: a purely conceptual idea (belongs at AMR) or a pure methods/measurement paper.
  • Over-scoping: three theories and ten constructs in one paper — pick the one tension you can defend.
  • Context as the only novelty: "same model, new country/industry" without a theoretical reason the context changes the mechanism.

Output format

【Phenomenon】one sentence (what happens in the world)
【Focal theory / lens】...
【Research question】why/when ...
【Tension / surprise】rival prediction or puzzle ...
【Candidate theoretical contribution】one line ...
【Division / framing home】micro / macro / HR / entrepreneurship / OMT
【AMJ fit verdict】fit / borderline / better at AMR/ASQ/SMJ/field
【Next step】amj-theory-development (build mechanism + hypotheses)

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12972026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12972026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12972026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12972026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12972026年9月27日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills12972026年9月27日 更新

查看 brycewang-stanford 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题