jppm-workflow
GitHubJPP&M投稿路由技能，用于指导营销与政策交叉领域稿件的流程。根据当前任务状态（如选题、理论、方法、贡献陈述等）精准推荐对应的子技能，解决从选题到反驳的序列决策问题，确保符合期刊严格的政策相关性要求。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jppm-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jppm-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which jppm-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (JPP&M) submission. Routes to the specialized skills — it does not do their work."
}
JPP&M Workflow Router (jppm-workflow)
Overview
This router directs work on a manuscript aimed at the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (JPP&M) — the American Marketing Association journal, published by SAGE, that lives at the intersection of marketing, public policy, and consumer/societal welfare. Since April 1, 2026, new submissions are handled by joint Editors in Chief Melissa Bublitz and Stacey Finkelstein, who succeeded Jeremy Kees and Beth Vallen (checked 2026-07-16 on ama.org; re-check the masthead before submitting). The journal's home turf: consumer protection and deception, warning and disclosure design, public-health marketing (tobacco, alcohol, food and nutrition labeling), privacy and data policy, sustainability, financial well-being, vulnerable consumers, and equity in marketplaces.
What makes JPP&M unlike any other marketing outlet is a hard policy-relevance bar. Every submission must include a Policy Contribution Statement (max 300 words, first page of the main document, excluded from the page cap) that names the policy conversation the paper joins, the advance over existing marketing-and-policy literature, and the specific stakeholders — FTC, FDA, CFPB, state regulators, NGOs, or marketers navigating regulation — who could act on the findings. A technically excellent consumer study with a policy paragraph stapled to the discussion is the journal's signature desk reject. Review is double-anonymized; manuscripts run at most 50 double-spaced pages inclusive of everything at every stage; submission goes through SageTrack at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ama_jppm.
When to trigger
- "What should I do next?" on a marketing-and-policy manuscript
- The paper has strong evidence but nobody can say which regulator would care
- Work is bouncing among framing, evaluation design, and the implications section
- A JPP&M decision letter arrived and you need to enter revision mode at the right link
- The team is torn between JPP&M and JM, JCR/JCP, Journal of Consumer Affairs, or a policy-school journal
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unclear whether the question is policy-first or just consumer research in a policy costume | jppm-topic-selection |
| No account of why the policy lever should change marketplace behavior | jppm-theory-development |
| Paper ignores the JPP&M canon or the regulatory record; gap statement is soft | jppm-literature-positioning |
| Choosing between an experiment, a quasi-experiment around a policy rollout, a survey, or a meta-analysis | jppm-methods |
| DiD/RDD estimates, treatment effects, or subgroup analyses need to be defensible | jppm-data-analysis |
| The Policy Contribution Statement is vague, or implications are not actionable | jppm-contribution-framing |
| Exhibits speak only to academics, not to a policy reader | jppm-tables-figures |
| Prose is jargon-heavy, advocacy-tinged, or the intro buries the policy problem | jppm-writing-style |
| Ready for SageTrack; need the anonymization, page-count, and statement preflight | jppm-submission |
| Need to understand the editor/AE pipeline, desk-reject odds, R&R norms | jppm-review-process |
| Drafting the response letter and revision plan for an R&R | jppm-rebuttal |
Default order
jppm-workflow → jppm-topic-selection → jppm-theory-development → jppm-literature-positioning → jppm-methods → jppm-data-analysis → jppm-contribution-framing → jppm-tables-figures → jppm-writing-style → jppm-submission → jppm-review-process → jppm-rebuttal
The Policy Contribution Statement is written twice: a draft at
jppm-topic-selection(to test whether the paper deserves to exist) and a final version atjppm-contribution-framing(once the estimates are in). Do not polish prose before the counterfactual holds up.
Routing by paper archetype
| Archetype | Binding constraint | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| Policy evaluation (a law/rule changed; did behavior?) | counterfactual credibility (DiD/RDD design) | jppm-methods |
| Consumer-protection experiment (warning, disclosure, label) | realistic stimuli + regulator-usable treatment contrasts | jppm-methods |
| Vulnerable-population field study | ethics, access, and welfare framing | jppm-topic-selection → jppm-theory-development |
| Privacy / data-policy study | mapping findings to a live rulemaking debate | jppm-literature-positioning |
| Conceptual / review piece for policymakers | synthesis that yields decisions, not a tour | jppm-contribution-framing |
Worked routing example (illustrative)
A user says: "We ran three studies showing calorie counts on menus reduce ordering; a friendly reviewer said 'nice JCP paper — why is this JPP&M?'" That is the classic boundary failure. Route to jppm-topic-selection to re-anchor the question in the live disclosure-regulation debate (what the FDA menu-labeling rule already requires, what remains contested), then jppm-contribution-framing to rewrite the Policy Contribution Statement around a decision a named stakeholder faces — e.g., whether to extend the rule to delivery platforms — and only then reconsider whether an extra study on the contested margin is needed (jppm-methods).
Anti-patterns
- Treating JPP&M as "JCP plus a policy paragraph" — the mechanism is welcome, but the policy question must drive
- Routing straight to
jppm-writing-stylewhen the real problem is a missing counterfactual - Advocating a regulation the data do not test — evidence-free advocacy is a desk reject here
- Writing implications no actual regulator has the authority or instrument to act on
- Quoting the editor team or portal from memory instead of re-checking ama.org / SAGE before submission
Output format
【Target】Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
【Archetype】policy-evaluation / protection-experiment / vulnerable-population / privacy-data / conceptual-review
【Current bottleneck】fit / theory-of-the-lever / positioning / design / estimates / policy-framing / exhibits / style / submission / revision
【Next skill】<one jppm-* skill>
【Reason】why this is the binding constraint now
【Source check】official facts verified (2026-07-16) or flagged "re-check on the official site"
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 16:49
