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.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/human-relations-skills:humrel-workflowThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
This is the router. It tells you **which humrel-* skill to use at the current stage** of a manuscript aimed at *Human Relations* (HR) — the long-established **interdisciplinary social-science journal of work, organization, and management**, published by **SAGE for the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations** (founded 1947, monthly). HR draws on organization studies, sociology, psychology, and c...
This is the router. It tells you which humrel- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Human Relations (HR) — the long-established interdisciplinary social-science journal of work, organization, and management, published by SAGE for the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (founded 1947, monthly). HR draws on organization studies, sociology, psychology, and critical perspectives, and its stated aim is "to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation." It treats qualitative, critical, quantitative, and mixed-methods work as equally first-class — what is non-negotiable is a unique and substantive theoretical contribution anchored in the relational, social nature of work.
Operational tells that you are at HR and not a sibling: review is double-anonymous, so the manuscript must be fully anonymized (no author names, no links to external sites); the total length cap is 13,000 words including everything (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准); referencing is SAGE Harvard (author-date); submission is through ScholarOne / ManuscriptCentral (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hr). HR runs an editorial scoping screen before full review — "suitable data are a necessary but not sufficient feature to get to full peer review" — so the contribution and fit must be legible up front. Co-Editors-in-Chief are Smriti Anand and Penny Dick (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Scope/audience fit uncertain; "is this an HR paper?" | humrel-topic-selection |
| Theory is thin, box-and-arrow, or under-engaged with social theory | humrel-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. adjacent conversations/journals is fuzzy | humrel-literature-positioning |
| Design choice and rigor (qual/critical/quant/mixed) unsettled | humrel-methods |
| Coding, estimation, or data-to-theory link is opaque | humrel-data-analysis |
| The "so what" / theoretical claim is not sharp | humrel-contribution-framing |
| Exhibits (data-structure table, models) hard to read | humrel-tables-figures |
| Prose flat; intro/abstract miss the reflexive HR register | humrel-writing-style |
| Anonymization, 13k cap, SAGE Harvard, portal preflight | humrel-submission |
| Want to calibrate scoping-screen odds / timeline / transfer | humrel-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | humrel-rebuttal |
humrel-topic-selection — lock the work-and-society question and HR fithumrel-theory-development — build the social-theoretical enginehumrel-literature-positioning — stake the contribution vs. the conversationhumrel-methods — design (qual / critical / quant / mixed) with rigorhumrel-data-analysis — make the evidence-to-theory link transparenthumrel-contribution-framing — sharpen the one-sentence theoretical claimhumrel-tables-figures — exhibits that carry, not decoratehumrel-writing-style — the reflexive HR voice (intro + abstract last)humrel-submission — anonymized ScholarOne preflighthumrel-review-process — calibrate the scoping screen and developmental reviewhumrel-rebuttal — after the R&R
humrel-writing-styleis a late polish; do not rewrite the intro before the theory and evidence settle.
HR spans several traditions, and the binding constraint differs by archetype. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| Ethnographic / qualitative process study | data-to-theory transparency + theoretical payoff | humrel-theory-development → humrel-data-analysis |
| Critical / reflexive (power, identity, discourse) | sharpening the critique into a travelling contribution | humrel-literature-positioning → humrel-contribution-framing |
| Quantitative / survey / multilevel | construct validity + theorizing beyond the coefficient | humrel-methods → humrel-data-analysis |
| Mixed-methods | integration logic (why both, what each adds) | humrel-methods |
| Theory paper (no new data) | novelty + reach vs. existing organizational theory | humrel-theory-development |
A user says: "My ethnography of platform couriers is rich, but a reviewer says it reads as 'a vivid case with thin theory' and feels closer to Work, Employment and Society than HR." That is two HR pushbacks — the data-to-theory ladder is invisible (owned by humrel-data-analysis) and the contribution is empirical not theoretical (owned by humrel-contribution-framing, scoped against siblings in humrel-literature-positioning). Route to theory and data first; only once the courier case yields a named, generative mechanism about control and identity at work — not just a labour-process description — do you return to humrel-writing-style and humrel-rebuttal.
if decision_letter_arrived: -> humrel-rebuttal
elif ready_to_submit: -> humrel-submission
elif exhibits_unclear: -> humrel-tables-figures
elif evidence_to_theory_opaque: -> humrel-data-analysis
elif design_or_rigor_unsettled: -> humrel-methods
elif claim_or_positioning_fuzzy: -> humrel-contribution-framing / humrel-literature-positioning
elif theory_thin: -> humrel-theory-development
else: -> humrel-topic-selection
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin human-relations-skillsCalibrates expectations for the Human Relations review process: editorial scoping screen, double-anonymous review, decision types, timelines, and rerouting to a sibling journal.
Routes manuscript work for Human Resource Management (Wiley) submissions, from topic selection through rebuttal. Invoke when deciding which hrm-* sub-skill to use next or sequencing a paper.
Evaluates manuscript fit for Human Relations journal, covering scope, method bar, house style, and desk-reject heuristics for interdisciplinary social-science-of-work submissions.