orgsci-workflow
GitHubOrganization Science 投稿流程路由器，指导作者从选题到回复审稿意见的各阶段工作。根据当前 Manuscript 状态（如理论薄弱、方法不符等），精准路由至对应的子技能，而非直接执行任务。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill orgsci-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "orgsci-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which orgsci-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an Organization Science manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
Organization Science Workflow (orgsci-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which orgsci- skill to use right now* for your Organization Science manuscript.
Default assumption: unless told otherwise, treat the target as Organization Science — the interdisciplinary, theory-driven INFORMS journal about organizations (their processes, structures, technologies, identities, capabilities, forms, and performance) spanning micro (individual/team) to macro (organizational/field/population) levels. Its defining bar is overall contribution: the editorial statement holds that "theoretical novelty is neither necessary nor sufficient," and contributions may come from new theory, data, method, settings, mechanisms, or social-problem/grand-challenge relevance. It is methodologically eclectic, with a signature openness to qualitative and inductive work alongside quantitative, experimental, computational, and formal-analytical research; causal inference is valued but "not necessary and often impossible."
Time-sensitive items: Lamar Pierce (Washington University in St. Louis) is Editor-in-Chief (oseic@wustl.edu); verify the masthead at pubsonline.informs.org/journal/orsc. A mandatory <500-word contribution statement in the cover letter has been required since June 1, 2023.
When to trigger
- "What should I do next?" with a half-built Organization Science manuscript
- You have inductive field data or a model but no sharpened theoretical contribution
- A senior editor pushes on "what is the contribution to organization research?"
- You received a decision letter and need to switch into response mode
- You keep bouncing between theory, method, and writing without a plan
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea is vague; unsure it fits Organization Science (vs. ASQ/AMJ/Mgmt Sci) | orgsci-topic-selection |
| Theory is thin; mechanism across levels not articulated | orgsci-theory-development |
| Front end reads as gap-spotting; not joining an organization-theory conversation | orgsci-literature-positioning |
| Design (qualitative/quant/experiment/computational/formal) may not fit | orgsci-methods |
| Have data/model output; unsure how to analyze and report it credibly | orgsci-data-analysis |
| Results exist but the contribution statement is weak | orgsci-contribution-framing |
| Tables/figures or a process model are cluttered or off house style | orgsci-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the argument; not in INFORMS author-date style | orgsci-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need the ScholarOne + length-policy preflight | orgsci-submission |
| Want to understand the decentralized senior-editor review process | orgsci-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need to plan and draft the response | orgsci-rebuttal |
Default order
orgsci-topic-selection— lock a theory-driven question with Organization Science fitorgsci-theory-development— build the cross-level mechanism / inductive grounded modelorgsci-literature-positioning— join an organization-theory conversationorgsci-methods— match design to the question and level of analysisorgsci-data-analysis— analyze and report transparently (including trustworthiness for qualitative work)orgsci-contribution-framing— draft the mandatory <500-word contribution statementorgsci-tables-figures— finalize exhibits / data structure / process modelorgsci-writing-style— prose polish in INFORMS author-date styleorgsci-submission— ScholarOne preflight (anonymization, ~50-page norm, separate appendix)orgsci-review-process— set expectations for the decentralized senior-editor processorgsci-rebuttal— after an R&R, plan revisions then draft the response letter
orgsci-tables-figuresandorgsci-writing-styleare late-stage polish. Do not invoke them while the theoretical contribution is still unsettled.
Routing diagnosis worksheet
When the bottleneck is unclear, fill this worksheet top to bottom; the first blank or shaky row is the stage to route to. It mirrors what a senior editor probes in the first read.
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE ROUTING DIAGNOSIS
Question ............ theory-driven question about organizations, stated in
one sentence? blank -> orgsci-topic-selection
Level ............... micro / meso / macro / cross-level named, and the
mechanism operates at that level? shaky -> orgsci-theory-development
Conversation ........ which organization-theory conversation does the paper
join (not a gap claim)? blank -> orgsci-literature-positioning
Design .............. qualitative / quant / experiment / computational /
formal — matched to the question? shaky -> orgsci-methods
Evidence ............ analysis transparent; trustworthiness shown for
inductive work? shaky -> orgsci-data-analysis
Contribution ........ <500-word cover-letter statement drafted and beyond
"theoretical novelty"? blank -> orgsci-contribution-framing
Package ............. exhibits, INFORMS author-date prose, ScholarOne files,
anonymization, ~50-page norm? shaky -> orgsci-tables-figures /
orgsci-writing-style / orgsci-submission
Decision shortcuts
- "I have rich field data but no theory yet" →
orgsci-topic-selectionthenorgsci-theory-development - "My intro says 'no one has studied X'" →
orgsci-literature-positioning - "An editor said 'interesting but not enough contribution'" →
orgsci-contribution-framing - "Reviewer wants causal identification I cannot get" →
orgsci-methodsthenorgsci-data-analysis(mechanism + design logic over identification) - "Submitting next week" →
orgsci-submission - "Got an R&R from one senior editor and two reviewers" →
orgsci-review-processthenorgsci-rebuttal
Difference vs. ASQ / AMJ / Management Science stacks
- Organization Science: interdisciplinary, theory-driven organizations research, micro to macro; eclectic methods with a qualitative/inductive signature; overall contribution over novelty; decentralized senior-editor model; INFORMS / ScholarOne at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orsc.
- ASQ: Cornell/SAGE; deep contextual/qualitative work and bold framing, but not the INFORMS venue.
- AMJ: AOM empirical journal; equal empirical + theoretical bar, page limit, AOM house style.
- Management Science: INFORMS sibling; departmental area-editor routing and a code-and-data disclosure mandate Organization Science does not impose.
Anti-patterns
- Do not chase causal identification at the expense of the contribution — this venue does not require it.
- Do not skip the contribution statement; submissions without it are returned before review.
- Do not treat polish as a substitute for an organization-theory contribution.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:08
