Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› humrel-literature-positioning
humrel-literature-positioning
GitHub用于在人力关系期刊投稿前，将稿件贡献与相关学术对话及相邻期刊定位对比。明确理论新颖性，构建论证以确立研究空白，并区分与其他管理学期刊的边界，确保贡献在初审阶段清晰可见。
Trigger Scenarios
理论存在但相对学术对话的新颖性模糊
文献综述仅为注释性书目而非建立空白的论证
审稿人质疑创新点或无法区分新旧工作
需证明稿件适合HR期刊而非其他相邻期刊
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill humrel-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "humrel-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when staking a Human Relations (HR) manuscript's contribution against the relevant scholarly conversation and adjacent journals. Positions the paper; it does not develop the theory or run analysis."
}
Literature Positioning (humrel-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The theory exists (from
humrel-theory-development) but its novelty relative to the conversation is fuzzy - Your literature review is an annotated bibliography, not an argument that creates a gap
- A reviewer says "this has been done," or cannot tell what is new versus prior work
- The paper could plausibly be read as an OS, JMS, AMJ, WES, or Organization paper and you must show why it is HR
Position against a conversation, not a topic pile
HR expects the literature to be marshalled into an argument that earns the contribution. The journal's own guidance is to "review recent issues to ensure that you are connecting to any relevant works in ways that take the conversation forward." So:
- Identify the specific conversation (e.g., identity work under precarity; algorithmic control; emotion and care work; institutional maintenance) and its current settled view.
- State the tension, gap, or anomaly in that view — what it cannot explain, gets wrong, or has overlooked.
- Show how your mechanism (from
humrel-theory-development) resolves or reframes it. The literature exists to set up the prior your paper overturns; it is not a tour. - Cite into HR itself. HR papers are expected to be in dialogue with recent HR articles and the broader Tavistock-tradition conversation; an HR submission that ignores the journal's own active debates reads as a poor fit.
Make the contribution legible at the scoping screen
Because HR screens for "a unique and substantive theoretical contribution" before full review, the positioning must be visible early: the introduction should let a handling editor see, within a page or two, which conversation you advance and how. A buried or hedged contribution is a scoping-screen risk.
Sibling differentiation — write the boundary explicitly
Reviewers will ask "why here?" Pre-empt it.
| Adjacent venue | What it would reward | What HR adds / requires |
|---|---|---|
| Organization Studies (EGOS) | a contribution internal to organization theory / paradigm debate | broader interdisciplinary social science of work |
| Journal of Management Studies | managerial relevance, the firm, strategy | the social relation as the object, managerial payoff secondary |
| Academy of Management Journal | a clean US-style empirical test of an OB hypothesis | theory + social context, plural methods, not a template |
| Work, Employment and Society | sociology of work, labour markets, class | the case theorized up into organizational/relational theory |
| Organization | critical/deconstructive intervention | critique that is generative, with a constructive theoretical claim |
If your draft fits a sibling better, that is a routing finding, not a defect — flag it back to humrel-topic-selection.
Checklist
- The target conversation and its settled view are named precisely
- The gap is an argued tension/anomaly, not "little is known about X"
- The contribution is legible in the first two pages (scoping-screen safe)
- Recent HR articles and the journal's active debates are engaged
- An explicit boundary distinguishes HR from OS / JMS / AMJ / WES / Organization
- No straw-manning of prior work; the field is represented fairly
- SAGE Harvard (author-date) citations used consistently (检索于 2026-06)
Anti-patterns
- A "literature dump": every adjacent study summarized, no argument built
- "Little is known about X" as a substitute for a real gap
- Citing none of HR's own recent conversation while claiming HR fit
- Straw-manning prior work to inflate the gap
- A contribution so hedged the scoping editor cannot locate it
- Positioning that would read identically for a sibling journal
Output format
【Journal】Human Relations
【Skill】humrel-literature-positioning
【Conversation joined】the specific debate + its settled view
【Gap/anomaly】the argued tension your paper resolves
【Contribution legibility】visible in intro? (yes/no)
【HR dialogue】recent HR/Tavistock works engaged
【Sibling boundary】why HR and not OS / JMS / AMJ / WES / Organization
【Next skill】humrel-methods
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:18
