From jms-skills
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.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jms-skills:jms-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The literature review is a "camel train" — a chronological parade of citations with no argument
At JMS, positioning is not a literature survey — it is an argument about where the conversation is stuck and how your paper unsticks it. Because JMS is pluralist and internationally oriented, you must position against the theoretical conversation (e.g., institutional logics, dynamic capabilities, entrepreneurial ecosystems, paradox theory), not merely the empirical topic. The strongest JMS contributions do one of a few recognisable moves; name yours explicitly.
| Move | What it looks like | Risk JMS reviewers flag |
|---|---|---|
| Extend | Push a theory into a new boundary, mechanism, or context | "Incremental" if the extension is obvious |
| Challenge / revise | Show an accepted relationship reverses or is conditional | Must be airtight; reviewers defend the orthodoxy |
| Reconcile | Resolve a contradiction between two literatures | Both literatures must be represented fairly |
| Build | Induce a new construct/process model from data (Path B) | "Description, not theory" if not abstracted |
| Bridge | Import a theory from another field to illuminate a management phenomenon | "Borrowed badly" if the source logic is misused |
Whatever the move, the contribution sentence should read: "The conversation about [X] assumes/overlooks [Y]; this paper shows [Z], which changes how we understand [X]."
【Conversation】named theoretical conversation
【Move】extend / challenge / reconcile / build / bridge
【Tension】the puzzle or contradiction (not a gap)
【Closest prior work】[cite] — how we differ
【Contribution sentence】"the conversation assumes X; we show Z, changing understanding of …"
【Venue check】why JMS not SMJ/OrgStudies/AMJ
【Next step】jms-methods (or jms-contribution-framing to finalise the claim)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jms-skillsPositions a JOM manuscript by staking the gap against the right conversation and differentiating from sibling journals (AMJ, SMJ, JMS, Org Science).
Guides the front end of an AMJ manuscript to engage relevant literatures and stake a clear theoretical position by surfacing tensions, contingencies, or problematizations; avoids gap-spotting.
Sharpens the one-sentence theoretical contribution and practical implications for JMS manuscripts when the 'so what' is the bottleneck.