From jms-skills
Sharpens the one-sentence theoretical contribution and practical implications for JMS manuscripts when the 'so what' is the bottleneck.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jms-skills:jms-contribution-framingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- A reviewer or coauthor asks "what exactly does this contribute to theory?"
A JMS paper must articulate a theoretical contribution that engages an organizational phenomenon and says what it changes — its house phrasing is the "so what for management theory and practice." Two things are non-negotiable: the contribution is to a theory/conversation (not just "we found an effect"), and it is commensurate with the evidence (neither inflated nor hidden). Because JMS is pluralist, the contribution can be a refined construct, a process model, a boundary condition, a reconciliation, or a challenge to orthodoxy — but it must be nameable in one sentence.
State it in this shape and pressure-test each slot:
"We contribute to [named conversation] by showing [specific theoretical insight], which revises/extends/reconciles [prior understanding] under [scope conditions]."
jms-literature-positioning staked.| Failure | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Over-claim | "Transforms how we understand strategy" from one study | Bound to the conversation and scope; let reviewers infer reach |
| Under-claim | The contribution is a sub-clause in paragraph 4 of the discussion | Lead the intro and discussion with it; one clear sentence |
| Finding-as-contribution | "We found X is significant" as the contribution | Translate the finding into what it changes theoretically |
| Contribution sprawl | Five contributions, each thin | Keep one or two strong, integrated contributions |
JMS values practical relevance, but it must be derived from the theory, not bolted on. Ask: given the mechanism, what should a specific decision-maker do differently, and under what condition? Generic "managers should pay attention to X" is not an implication — name the actor, the decision, and the contingency.
【Conversation】named conversation (must match positioning)
【Contribution sentence】"we contribute to … by showing …, revising … under …"
【Type】mechanism / construct / process model / boundary condition / reconciliation / challenge
【Scope conditions】where it holds / does not
【Size check】over-claim? under-claim? finding-as-contribution? → fix
【Practice implication】actor + decision + contingency
【Next step】jms-tables-figures, then jms-writing-style
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jms-skillsFrames empirical results into a theoretical contribution for JOM manuscripts, focusing on the 'what new theory do we learn?' statement and discussion section.
Frames empirical results into an explicit theoretical contribution for AMJ manuscripts, crafting the discussion section around mechanism, boundary, or integration claims.
Positions a JMS manuscript against the literature by naming the theoretical conversation and showing what the paper adds. Use when the literature review lacks argument or reviewers question the contribution.