Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› hrm-literature-positioning
hrm-literature-positioning
GitHub用于指导HRM期刊论文的定位策略。通过对比HRMJ、PP等兄弟期刊，明确论文所属的具体学术对话，利用锚定文献构建贡献缺口，避免模糊表述或仅强调地域/行业新颖性，确保在引言中清晰阐述为何该研究属于HRM领域而非其他管理学分支。
Trigger Scenarios
引言泛泛而谈未锁定具体HRM学术对话
无法清晰回答‘我们新知道了什么’
论文可能被误读为Personnel Psychology或JAP等期刊文章
引用文献偏向因变量或HR实践某一方而失衡
贡献仅限于特定国家或行业的首次研究
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill hrm-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "hrm-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when staking the contribution of a Human Resource Management (Wiley \"HRM\") manuscript against the right conversation — and against the siblings it is confused with (HRMJ, Personnel Psychology, JAP, AMJ). Positions the paper; it does not sharpen the one-line claim (hrm-contribution-framing)."
}
Literature Positioning (hrm-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The intro reviews "everything on the topic" instead of the specific HRM conversation the paper joins
- A reviewer asks "what do we now know that we didn't?" and the answer is fuzzy
- The paper could plausibly be read as a Personnel Psychology, JAP, or HRMJ paper
- You are citing the dependent-variable literature but not the HR-practice literature (or vice versa)
- The contribution is "first study in [country/sector]" with no theoretical or systemic advance
Position against the conversation, not the topic
HRM contributions are judged relative to a specific scholarly conversation — e.g., the HR–performance black box, HR-system strength and climate, the implementation gap, line-manager enactment, talent differentiation, HR and well-being, HR analytics. Identify the 2–4 anchor works that own your conversation and state precisely how your paper extends, qualifies, reconciles, or overturns them. Vague positioning ("little is known about X in Y") is a desk-screen risk because the EIC gates on fit and contribution before review.
The sibling map (this is where HRM papers get mis-positioned)
| Journal | Center of gravity | How to position toward HRM |
|---|---|---|
| HRMJ (Wiley, UK/CIPD; ISSN 1748-8583) | critical, European, employment-relations and context | Frame around HR design and its measurable outcomes, not a critical/contextual essay |
| Personnel Psychology | rigorous micro selection, performance, individual differences | Tie the individual effect up to the HR system, unit, or firm |
| Journal of Applied Psychology | psychological mechanisms, lab + field, individual level | Make the HR practice/policy the cause, not just a psychological state |
| Academy of Management Journal | broad management theory test | Deliver an HR-practice/policy payoff, not only a theory extension |
| Journal of Management | broad strategy/OB; reviews | Keep the HR-system or employment-relationship as the focal object |
A one-line "why here, not there" belongs in the intro: e.g., "Unlike micro work that treats psychological safety as the cause, we treat the HR voice system as the cause and trace its firm-level return."
Building the contribution gap
- Map the conversation. Name the anchor works and the current consensus.
- Locate the tension. Find the unresolved disagreement, the untested boundary, the conflated constructs, or the implementation gap.
- State your move. Extend / qualify / reconcile / overturn — pick one verb and own it.
- Pre-empt the "incremental" verdict. Show that without your paper the field would draw a wrong or incomplete conclusion.
- Add the practice angle. HRM positioning also asks: what would practitioners get wrong without this?
Checklist
- The specific HRM conversation (not the broad topic) is named with anchor works
- The contribution verb (extend/qualify/reconcile/overturn) is explicit
- A one-line "why HRM, not HRMJ / PPsych / JAP / AMJ" is stated
- Both the HR-practice literature and the outcome literature are engaged
- The gap is a real tension, not just "understudied in context X"
- The positioning makes the practice payoff visible, not only the theory gap
- APA citation style throughout (HRM house style)
Anti-patterns
- Topic dump: reviewing all work on the dependent variable instead of the focal conversation
- Gap-by-absence: "no one has studied X in Y" as the whole contribution
- Sibling blur: positioning that would fit HRMJ or PPsych equally well
- One-sided literature: citing the outcome literature but not the HR-practice literature
- Citation padding: long reference lists that never state the disagreement being resolved
- Buried contribution: the contribution sentence appears only in the discussion, not the intro
Output format
【Journal】Human Resource Management (Wiley "HRM")
【Skill】hrm-literature-positioning
【Conversation joined】HR–performance black box / HR-system strength / implementation gap / ...
【Anchor works】2–4 works owning the conversation
【Contribution verb】extend / qualify / reconcile / overturn
【Why HRM not sibling】one line vs. HRMJ / PPsych / JAP / AMJ
【Practice angle】what practitioners would get wrong without this
【Source status】verified / 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 / 待核实
【Next skill】hrm-methods
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:18
