From jibs-skills
Frames IB theoretical contribution for a JIBS manuscript — stating cross-border insights, non-incrementality, and implications for theory, practice, and societal impact.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jibs-skills:jibs-contribution-framingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- Results exist but the "so what for IB theory" is thin or implicit
JIBS expects every manuscript to (a) address a real-world international-business phenomenon and (b) state explicitly what it contributes to IB theory. Incremental extensions are discouraged. A finding that merely replicates a known management relationship in a new country does not clear the bar; the contribution must change how the field understands cross-border activity, the MNE, internationalization, cross-cultural interaction, or the global political economy.
JIBS frames IB research, under its current editorial vision, as research that should also "matter for a better world." Beyond theoretical and managerial implications, articulate societal/policy implications where warranted (e.g., for global value chains, labor, sustainability, or development). The journal's editorial structure includes a Societal Impact dimension, so a credible impact statement strengthens fit.
Place an explicit contribution statement in both the introduction (forward-looking) and the discussion (delivered). Each should answer: What did the IB field believe? What do we now know? Why could no single-country study have shown this?
Before accepting a contribution sentence, make it survive four JIBS objections:
| Objection | Required answer |
|---|---|
| "This is domestic management in another country." | Name the cross-border, comparative, institutional-distance, MNE, or global-value-chain mechanism that no single-country design could reveal. |
| "The result is a boundary condition only." | Explain why the boundary changes theory rather than merely adding a moderator. |
| "The sample is context-bound." | State the exact contexts where the claim travels and where it should not. |
| "The impact claim is decorative." | Tie societal or policy implications to the IB mechanism, not to generic managerial relevance. |
Use this proof to decide whether the paper needs a sharper IB theory move, a stronger comparative design, or a more modest scope statement. A narrow but honest IB contribution is stronger than a global claim unsupported by the country set.
【IB theory moved】extend / qualify / overturn ...
【Cross-level insight】country/culture-as-level payoff ...
【Non-incrementality】prevailing IB expectation vs. your claim ...
【Boundary conditions & scope】travels to / not to ...
【Implications】theory | practice | societal impact ...
【Contribution sentences】intro + discussion drafts ...
【Next step】jibs-tables-figures / jibs-writing-style
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jibs-skillsGuides building cross-level theoretical mechanisms and deriving hypotheses for JIBS manuscripts, specifying country/culture→firm/individual logic and boundary conditions.
Sharpens the one-sentence theoretical contribution and practical implications for JMS manuscripts when the 'so what' is the bottleneck.
Frames explicit theoretical contributions for the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) by stating new entrepreneurial theory, boundary conditions, and multidisciplinary reach. Use when results exist but contribution is thin or implicit.