Positions a Human Relations manuscript's contribution against the relevant scholarly conversation and adjacent journals. For staking theoretical novelty and pre-empting scoping-screen / reviewer concerns.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/human-relations-skills:humrel-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The theory exists (from `humrel-theory-development`) but its novelty *relative to the conversation* is fuzzy
humrel-theory-development) but its novelty relative to the conversation is fuzzyHR expects the literature to be marshalled into an argument that earns the contribution. The journal's own guidance is to "review recent issues to ensure that you are connecting to any relevant works in ways that take the conversation forward." So:
humrel-theory-development) resolves or reframes it. The literature exists to set up the prior your paper overturns; it is not a tour.Because HR screens for "a unique and substantive theoretical contribution" before full review, the positioning must be visible early: the introduction should let a handling editor see, within a page or two, which conversation you advance and how. A buried or hedged contribution is a scoping-screen risk.
Reviewers will ask "why here?" Pre-empt it.
| Adjacent venue | What it would reward | What HR adds / requires |
|---|---|---|
| Organization Studies (EGOS) | a contribution internal to organization theory / paradigm debate | broader interdisciplinary social science of work |
| Journal of Management Studies | managerial relevance, the firm, strategy | the social relation as the object, managerial payoff secondary |
| Academy of Management Journal | a clean US-style empirical test of an OB hypothesis | theory + social context, plural methods, not a template |
| Work, Employment and Society | sociology of work, labour markets, class | the case theorized up into organizational/relational theory |
| Organization | critical/deconstructive intervention | critique that is generative, with a constructive theoretical claim |
If your draft fits a sibling better, that is a routing finding, not a defect — flag it back to humrel-topic-selection.
【Journal】Human Relations
【Skill】humrel-literature-positioning
【Conversation joined】the specific debate + its settled view
【Gap/anomaly】the argued tension your paper resolves
【Contribution legibility】visible in intro? (yes/no)
【HR dialogue】recent HR/Tavistock works engaged
【Sibling boundary】why HR and not OS / JMS / AMJ / WES / Organization
【Next skill】humrel-methods
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin human-relations-skillsPositions an HRM manuscript within the correct scholarly conversation and against sibling journals (HRMJ, Personnel Psychology, JAP, AMJ). Use when the intro reviews topics instead of specific conversations, or when a paper could be mistaken for another journal's work.
Routes manuscript work for Human Relations journal submissions, diagnosing bottlenecks and directing to the appropriate humrel-* sub-skill for topic selection, theory, methods, writing, or revision.
Guides authors targeting Human Resource Management (Wiley) on venue fit, framing, methods, and submission strategy to avoid desk rejection.