Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› human-relations
human-relations
GitHub用于评估稿件是否适合Human Relations期刊，提供选题匹配、理论贡献判断、方法论要求及拒稿风险预警，辅助跨学科组织研究论文的 venue selection 与重构。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定 Human Relations 为投稿目标
需评估跨学科工作/组织研究的适配性
寻求替代期刊建议或了解拒稿风险
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill human-relations -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "human-relations",
"description": "Use when targeting Human Relations or deciding whether an interdisciplinary social-science-of-work \/ organizations manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Human Relations (human-relations)
Journal positioning
Human Relations, founded in the tradition of the Tavistock Institute and published by SAGE, is a leading interdisciplinary journal for the social science of work, employment, and organizations. It deliberately bridges disciplines — organizational behavior, sociology, psychology, industrial relations, and critical management — and welcomes critical and qualitative approaches alongside quantitative work. Its hallmark is intellectual breadth with a theoretical contribution and a concern for the human and social dimensions of organizing. The audience is interdisciplinary social scientists of work, so a paper must offer conceptual insight that crosses disciplinary boundaries, not a narrow technical result.
This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the Tavistock / Human Relations / SAGE site and the submission system.
When to trigger
- The author names Human Relations (or the Tavistock interdisciplinary work-and-organizations tradition) as the venue.
- An interdisciplinary, critical, or qualitative study of work, employment, or organizations needs a theory-forward home.
- A paper that bridges OB, sociology, and industrial relations needs an outlet that values that breadth.
- The author needs Human Relations' desk-reject risks and a credible
organization-studies/journal-of-management-studies/human-resource-managementalternative list.
Scope & topic fit
- The social science of work and organizations: employment relationships, work and identity, power and control, well-being, careers, and organizational change.
- Industrial relations, the sociology and psychology of work, and critical management studies.
- Interdisciplinary theorizing that draws on more than one tradition to explain organizational phenomena.
- Qualitative, critical, and quantitative work, judged by theoretical contribution rather than method.
Method & evidence bar
- A clear, theoretically grounded contribution is required; the paper must advance understanding, not just report results.
- Methodological pluralism with rigor — qualitative/critical work needs transparent analysis and reflexivity; quantitative work needs sound design and measurement.
- Interdisciplinary framing is valued: the contribution should speak across, not within, a single subfield.
- Mechanisms and the social/human context of organizing are taken seriously.
Structure & house style
- The front end frames a theoretical problem and positions it across relevant disciplines and debates.
- A strong Human Relations paper foregrounds the theoretical and conceptual contribution and its broader social relevance.
- Qualitative and critical papers present transparent, reflexive analysis; quantitative papers subordinate technique to contribution.
- House style rewards scholarly, accessible, interdisciplinary prose.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Human Relations submission guidelines / SAGE author guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check word/length limits, abstract format, anonymization for double-blind review, reference style, and any article-type rules.
- Re-check current open-science, data-transparency (appropriate to method), and AI-use disclosure policies.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence stating the theoretical contribution and why it crosses disciplinary boundaries.
- The method (qualitative, critical, or quantitative) is rigorous and fit to the contribution.
- The paper engages the interdisciplinary conversation about work and organizations.
- The human/social dimension and mechanism are developed, not just an effect reported.
- Framing, references, and anonymization match the current Human Relations guide.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A narrow, single-discipline technical study with no interdisciplinary or theoretical reach.
- A descriptive or atheoretical empirical paper with no conceptual contribution.
- Critical work that is polemical rather than scholarly; qualitative work without transparent analysis.
- An applied HR or managerial-prescription paper with no theoretical payoff.
Re-routing decision
- HRM-specialist research bridging rigor and practice →
human-resource-management; broad management empirics →journal-of-management-en. - European process/institutional/discourse/critical org theory →
organization-studies; theory-development with pluralistic methods →journal-of-management-studies. - Sociology-of-organizations craft at top selectivity →
administrative-science-quarterly; multidisciplinary org theory incl. computational →organization-science. - US-style theory-driven empirics →
academy-of-management-journal; pure theory →academy-of-management-review; review →academy-of-management-annals; entrepreneurship →entrepreneurship-theory-and-practice.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Human Relations
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is the interdisciplinary theoretical contribution at Human Relations' bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <submission system / length / references / article type / AI disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:07
