amr-workflow
GitHubAMR理论构建工作流的路由器，用于指导管理学期刊投稿各阶段。根据当前症状（如选题模糊、逻辑缺失等）推荐具体的amr-*子技能，协助完成从理论框架到修订的完整流程，不替代专业功能。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amr-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "amr-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which amr-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a theory-building manuscript from theoretical-puzzle framing through developmental-review revision for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
AMR Theory-Building Workflow (amr-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you which amr- skill to use at the current stage* of an Academy of Management Review manuscript.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as AMR — the Academy of Management's premier theory-development journal. AMR publishes conceptual articles that build new theory; per its scope, submissions "must extend theory in ways that develop testable knowledge-based claims." It contains no datasets, no hypothesis tests, no results section — empirical hypothesis-testing is the lane of its sibling AMJ. The deliverable is a genuinely new theoretical contribution: new constructs, a new process model, or a reconceptualization — developed with rigorous logic, explicit assumptions, propositions, and boundary conditions. If the project has data and tests, it belongs at AMJ / ASQ / SMJ, not AMR.
The AMR contribution bar is set by two AMR-published editorials worth keeping in view at every stage: Whetten's "What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?" (1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371) — the What/How/Why/Who-Where-When rubric — and Suddaby's "Editor's Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization" (2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419). Pure-theory exemplars built by argument alone: Oliver, "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes" (1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002); Dyer & Singh, "The Relational View" (1998, DOI 10.5465/amr.1998.1255632). References follow APA-style (AOM house style).
When to trigger
- The user asks "what should I do next?" on a conceptual paper
- A draft arrives and you must locate its bottleneck (puzzle? logic? contribution?)
- Work is thrashing between theorizing, figure-building, and writing
- An AMR decision letter (developmental review) has arrived and the work shifts to revision
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea is vague; not sure there is a real theoretical puzzle | amr-topic-selection |
| Have a puzzle but constructs/relationships/logic are not built | amr-theory-development |
| Unsure which conversation to enter or what to "challenge" | amr-literature-positioning |
| Propositions exist but the construction method feels thin | amr-methods |
| Propositions stated but underlying logical argument is missing | amr-data-analysis |
| Cannot articulate what is NEW vs. prior theory | amr-contribution-framing |
| Box-and-arrow figure has no mechanism / typology not earning its keep | amr-tables-figures |
| Prose reads like a literature review, not an argument | amr-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need the ScholarOne preflight | amr-submission |
| Want to understand AMR's developmental, multi-round review | amr-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need to write the response document | amr-rebuttal |
Default order
amr-topic-selection— lock the theoretical puzzle (the "why doesn't existing theory explain this?")amr-literature-positioning— identify the conversation to challenge and extendamr-theory-development— build constructs, relationships, propositions, boundary conditionsamr-methods— theory-construction craft: construct domains, mechanisms, assumptionsamr-data-analysis— argument development: logic checks, counterfactuals, alternative explanationsamr-contribution-framing— differentiate the new theory from prior workamr-tables-figures— finalize the conceptual figure / typology / propositions tableamr-writing-style— AOM house style; argument-driven prose (polish)amr-submission— ScholarOne preflightamr-review-process— understand the developmental review you are about to enteramr-rebuttal— after the R&R
amr-writing-styleis a late-stage polish. Do not polish prose before the theory's logic stands up (amr-data-analysis) and the contribution is differentiated (amr-contribution-framing).
Decision shortcuts
- "I have an interesting phenomenon but no theory" →
amr-topic-selection - "I don't know whose theory I'm arguing with" →
amr-literature-positioning - "I have propositions but no logic connecting them" →
amr-data-analysis - "My P1–P5 read like assertions" →
amr-theory-developmentthenamr-data-analysis - "A reviewer will ask 'what's new here?'" →
amr-contribution-framing - "My model figure is boxes and arrows with no mechanism" →
amr-tables-figures - "It reads like a review essay" →
amr-writing-style - "I'm about to hit submit" →
amr-submission - "I got a Reject & Resubmit / Major Revision" →
amr-review-processthenamr-rebuttal
Differences vs. AMJ / ASQ / SMJ skill stacks
If the manuscript has data, measures, and statistical tests, an empirical-management stack (AMJ / ASQ / SMJ) fits better. The core split:
- AMR: builds theory; the contribution IS the theory; no data; propositions, not hypotheses tested.
- AMJ / ASQ / SMJ: test theory; hypotheses, samples, estimation, results.
A common failure is sending an AMR draft that is really an under-powered empirical paper, or an AMJ draft whose "theory" is a literature summary. Pick the right stack early.
Stage ledger (paste at the top of your working file)
Keep one honest line per stage. AMR reviewers judge the theory, so the ledger tracks
argument-state, not word count. Mark a stage DONE only when its gate is truly cleared.
AMR THEORY-BUILDING LEDGER — manuscript: ____________________
[ ] puzzle why does existing theory FAIL to explain X? ......... route: amr-topic-selection
[ ] conversation whose theory am I extending / challenging? ........... route: amr-literature-positioning
[ ] constructs each construct: name + domain + What/How/Why (Whetten) route: amr-theory-development
[ ] propositions P1..Pn stated; each has an explicit causal logic ..... route: amr-data-analysis
[ ] boundaries Who/Where/When conditions named for the theory ....... route: amr-theory-development
[ ] contribution one sentence: "New vs. prior theory is ____" ......... route: amr-contribution-framing
[ ] figure box-and-arrow shows a MECHANISM, not a taxonomy ...... route: amr-tables-figures
[ ] prose reads as argument, not literature review ............. route: amr-writing-style
[ ] preflight 200-word abstract, APA refs, ScholarOne fields ....... route: amr-submission
GATE: no data, no hypothesis tests, no results section — if present, this is an AMJ paper.
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
amr-literature-positioningand jump to building — reviewers first ask whose conversation you are in. - Do not let
amr-tables-figurespretty up a model before the propositions and mechanisms exist. - Do not let
amr-rebuttaldraft a response before the theory itself has actually been revised. - Do not treat AMR as a venue for data; route empirical work elsewhere.
Submission specifics change. The source map now verifies the current editor, ScholarOne portal, no-fee policy, AOM style mechanics, 200-word abstract limit, and AI-disclosure policy; keep checking the official AMR / AOM author pages for manuscript length, portal prompts, and any newly published acceptance-rate or reviewer-count figures.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:14
