ijoc-workflow
GitHubIJOC投稿工作流路由器，用于指导论文从构思到回复的各个阶段选择正确的专用技能。根据当前痛点（如选题、理论、实验等）路由至对应ijoc-*子技能，不替代具体执行。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ijoc-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "ijoc-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which ijoc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from idea through rebuttal for an INFORMS Journal on Computing (IJOC) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
IJOC Workflow Router (ijoc-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It tells you which ijoc- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at the INFORMS Journal on Computing (IJOC) — the INFORMS journal at the intersection of operations research / management science and computer science. IJOC judges a paper on its computational and/or methodological advance: algorithm design and analysis, exact and heuristic optimization, integer/stochastic/robust programming, simulation, computational probability, machine learning for OR, data-science methodology, and the software/computational tooling that makes OR work. A clever application alone does not clear the bar; the computing must be the contribution.
Operational tells that you are at IJOC and not a sibling: the author selects one of the journal's 10 technical areas at submission via ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijoc); the Area Editor desk-rejects roughly 40% of submissions and the associate editor's identity is never disclosed to authors; review is single-blind (reviewers see author names); and IJOC runs a distinctive reproducibility regime — accepted papers deposit code/data in the IJOC Software and Data Repository on GitHub (the INFORMSJoC organization), which snapshots a tagged release and mints a separate code DOI (….cd) alongside the article DOI. Editor-in-chief: David L. Woodruff (UC Davis), succeeding Alice E. Smith (whose term ended 2025-12-31); confirmed via INFORMS (检索于 2026-06-22；以官网为准). Re-verify volatile specifics on the official INFORMS pages.
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on an IJOC-bound paper
- A draft's binding constraint (scope fit, algorithmic claim, experiments, exhibits, deposit) needs naming
- Work is ping-ponging between method design, computational experiments, framing, and the response letter
- An IJOC decision letter arrived and the user must switch into revision mode
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure the paper is computing-first or which of the 10 areas fits | ijoc-topic-selection |
| The algorithm/model is described but its formulation, correctness, or guarantees are loose | ijoc-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. OR/MS and CS prior art is fuzzy or oversold | ijoc-literature-positioning |
| Method choice, baselines, or experimental protocol are not pinned down | ijoc-methods |
| Computational experiments need instances, fair tuning, timing, and statistics | ijoc-data-analysis |
| The "what is new computationally" sentence is not sharp | ijoc-contribution-framing |
| Performance profiles / runtime-vs-size plots are dense or misleading | ijoc-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the method; abstract/intro do not land the advance | ijoc-writing-style |
| Page limit, LaTeX template, area choice, GitHub deposit prep | ijoc-submission |
| Want to understand AE/AE-blind timeline, desk-reject odds, or sibling transfer | ijoc-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter and re-experiment plan | ijoc-rebuttal |
Default order
ijoc-topic-selection— confirm computing-first scope and the right areaijoc-theory-development— formulate the algorithm/model; state correctness/complexityijoc-literature-positioning— stake the advance vs. OR/MS and CS frontiersijoc-methods— method choice, baselines, experimental designijoc-data-analysis— instances, tuning, timing, statistical comparison, scalingijoc-contribution-framing— sharpen the one-sentence computational claimijoc-tables-figures— performance profiles and scaling plotsijoc-writing-style— make the advance land (abstract + intro last)ijoc-submission— page limit, template, area, GitHub deposit preflightijoc-review-process— calibrate the AE-blind cycle; consider sibling fitijoc-rebuttal— after the R&R
ijoc-writing-styleis a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before the algorithm and experiments settle.
Anti-patterns
- Treating IJOC like Operations Research (broad OR theory) or Management Science (broad MS) — IJOC wants the computing/methodology to be the news
- Confusing it with Mathematical Programming Computation (pure computational MP) or INFORMS Journal on Optimization (optimization theory) — IJOC is the OR↔computing interface across simulation, ML, probability, and tooling, not optimization alone
- Polishing exhibits or prose while the algorithm or its experiments are still moving
- Deferring the GitHub code/data deposit to "after acceptance" — design reproducibility in from the start
- Submitting to the wrong technical area and inviting a fast Area-Editor desk reject
Routing by paper archetype
IJOC spans distinct computing archetypes; the binding constraint differs by archetype. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| exact algorithm / new formulation (B&C, decomposition) | correctness + complexity + benchmark instances | ijoc-theory-development → ijoc-data-analysis |
| (meta)heuristic / matheuristic | fair tuning, baselines, statistical wins not luck | ijoc-methods → ijoc-data-analysis |
| ML-for-OR / learning-to-optimize | generalization claim + OR baseline + reproducibility | ijoc-methods → ijoc-data-analysis |
| simulation / computational probability | DGP, seeds, variance reduction, validation | ijoc-methods → ijoc-data-analysis |
| software / computational tooling | what is the methodological news beyond the tool | ijoc-contribution-framing → ijoc-submission |
Worked routing example (illustrative)
A user says: "My branch-and-cut solver beats the commercial baseline on my instances, but a referee says the win could be tuning and the instance set is cherry-picked." That is two IJOC pushbacks — unfair experimental comparison and non-representative benchmark — both owned by ijoc-data-analysis, with the formulation/cut-validity defense in ijoc-theory-development. Route to ijoc-data-analysis first: re-run on standard library instances (e.g., MIPLIB-class), tune both solvers on a disjoint set, report a performance profile and a Wilcoxon test, and disclose hardware and time limits. Only once the win survives do you return to ijoc-tables-figures and ijoc-rebuttal.
Minimal decision snippet
if decision_letter_arrived: -> ijoc-rebuttal
elif ready_to_submit: -> ijoc-submission
elif exhibits_or_profiles: -> ijoc-tables-figures
elif experiments_or_benchmarks: -> ijoc-data-analysis
elif method_or_baselines: -> ijoc-methods
elif formulation_or_guarantees: -> ijoc-theory-development
elif claim_or_positioning_fuzzy: -> ijoc-contribution-framing / ijoc-literature-positioning
else: -> ijoc-topic-selection
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:22
