Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› smj-contribution-framing
smj-contribution-framing
GitHub用于优化SMJ投稿的贡献声明，聚焦战略理论增量。通过明确“so what”将发现转化为理论贡献，涵盖新机制、边界条件等类型，并规范引言表述以强化理论与实践意义。
Trigger Scenarios
审稿人质疑研究缺乏理论深度或仅为管理实践而非战略研究
贡献段落仅罗列发现而未阐述理论进步
讨论部分总结结果但未说明对领域的改变
不确定贡献是理论性还是实证性
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill smj-contribution-framing -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "smj-contribution-framing",
"description": "Use when sharpening the contribution claim of a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript so it lands as a contribution to *strategy theory*. Frames the \"so what\"; it does not develop the theory or run analysis."
}
Contribution Framing (smj-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
- A reviewer could ask "so what?" or "this is management, not strategy"
- Your contribution paragraph lists findings rather than stating a theoretical advance
- The discussion summarizes results but does not say what changes for the field
- You are unsure whether your contribution is theoretical, empirical, or both
What counts as a contribution at SMJ
SMJ rewards a contribution to strategy theory — a change in how scholars understand firm performance or competitive advantage — backed by credible evidence. A finding alone is not a contribution. The test: after reading this, what should a strategy scholar now believe that they did not, or believe differently?
SMJ also asks you to make the work relevant to practice via a separate managerial summary (≤125 words) alongside the academic research summary. So the contribution needs a defensible "so what for managers" as well as a "so what for theory" — and the theory claim should rest on an economically meaningful effect, not just a significant coefficient (SMJ disapproves of p-hacking).
Types of contribution (and how to make each land)
| Type | How to frame it |
|---|---|
| New mechanism | "We open the black box of why X → performance, showing it runs through M." |
| Boundary condition / contingency | "X helps performance, but only when C; this bounds the prevailing claim." |
| Reconciliation | "We explain why prior work found A and B by identifying the moderator that separates them." |
| Construct / reconceptualization | "We re-specify X, changing what the theory predicts." |
| Cross-lens integration | "Combining RBV and TCE resolves a tension neither resolves alone." |
| Methodological + substantive | "A cleaner identification overturns a correlational belief." (Method serves the substance.) |
Framing rules
- Lead with the theoretical advance, not the data. State what changes for strategy theory in one or two sentences before describing the empirics.
- Name the conversation you move (tie back to
smj-literature-positioning). The contribution must land in a stream, not in a vacuum. - Be specific and falsifiable. "We contribute to the strategy literature" is empty. "We show that alliance experience helps performance only below a complexity threshold" is a contribution.
- Right-size the claim. Over-claiming ("we overturn RBV") invites attack; under-claiming ("a modest extension") invites desk-skepticism. Claim exactly what the evidence supports.
- Make the strategy stakes explicit. Connect the advance to performance / competitive advantage so no reviewer can call it generic management.
Where the contribution appears
- Introduction: a tight statement of the gap and the advance (the "our move" sentence, expanded).
- Theory section: the mechanism that constitutes the contribution.
- Discussion: restate the advance, its boundary, implications for strategy theory, and 1–2 honest limitations.
- Keep the framing consistent across all three; drift between intro and discussion is a common reviewer complaint.
Checklist
- One or two sentences state what strategy scholars should now believe differently
- The contribution is tied to a named conversation/stream
- The advance connects explicitly to performance / competitive advantage
- The claim is specific and falsifiable, not "we contribute to the literature"
- The claim is right-sized to the evidence (no over/under-claiming)
- Intro, theory, and discussion frame the same contribution consistently
- The managerial summary (≤125 words) gives real practitioner takeaways, not a restated abstract
- The claim rests on an economically meaningful magnitude, not just statistical significance
- Practical/managerial implications are present but do not replace the theoretical contribution
Anti-patterns
- A contribution that is generic "management" rather than specifically about strategy / advantage — a core SMJ rejection trigger
- Listing empirical findings and calling them the contribution
- "Contributes to the literature" with no specified change in understanding
- Over-claiming a paradigm shift the data cannot support
- Contribution stated in the intro but quietly different in the discussion
- Selling the method ("first to use this estimator") as if it were the substantive contribution
Output format
【Contribution type】mechanism | boundary | reconciliation | reconceptualization | integration | method-enabled
【What changes (1–2 sentences)】strategy scholars should now believe ...
【Conversation moved】(from smj-literature-positioning)
【Strategy stakes】link to performance / competitive advantage
【Claim size check】supported by evidence? yes/needs trimming
【So-what for managers (feeds managerial summary)】[one line]
【Consistency】intro = theory = discussion? yes/fix
【Next step】smj-tables-figures
Templates & resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— SMJ scope and the dual-abstract (research + managerial summary) requirement
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:28
