From jom-skills
Plans and drafts a point-by-point revision response letter for JOM R&R, prioritizing DE/AE concerns and resolving method-check issues.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jom-skills:jom-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You received a major-revision (R&R) decision from JOM
JOM's decision is filtered through a Department Editor and Associate Editor on top of reviewers. Before writing:
jom-contribution-framing, not just more tables.Expect more than one round; first-round acceptance is essentially unheard of. Maintain a clean changelog and a reproducible analysis pipeline so each round's edits are traceable. Re-run the similarity check (single-source <1%, overall <15%) on the revised manuscript, and update disclosures (e.g., any new prior-data use).
Sort every comment before drafting. The categories below reflect how JOM's Department-routed, methods-gated process weights concerns; resolution norms are interpretive — confirm against your letter's instructions.
| Comment type | Source weight | Typical resolution norm |
|---|---|---|
| Operations-as-heart / contribution | DE/AE decisive | Reframe via jom-contribution-framing; change it |
| Method-check (sampling, measurement, identification) | Methods gate | Fix fully; arguing away rarely survives |
| Theory mechanism | DE/AE + reviewers | Strengthen the a priori operations logic |
| Robustness / alternative specification | Reviewer | Add and report transparently, nulls included |
| Presentation (exhibits, APA, length) | Reviewer | Implement; low-cost goodwill |
An R&R on a supplier-disruption archival study carries one decisive AE concern — reverse causality between disruption exposure and resilience investment — plus six reviewer asks (illustrative). Triage: the AE concern is the survival issue, so the revision leads with a new identification strategy (an instrument from upstream geographic shocks, first-stage F reported, exclusion argued in operations terms), then folds the reviewer points around it. The letter opens each entry with what was done and the exact table/page, reports the instrumented estimate even though it attenuates, and states the operational conclusion holds in direction. Because the decisive method-check concern is fixed rather than rebutted, the paper can clear the second round.
First-round acceptance is essentially unheard of at JOM and multiple developmental rounds are the norm; budget for at least one more round and keep a clean changelog and reproducible pipeline so edits stay traceable. This reflects JOM's review culture, not a guaranteed outcome — read your letter for the editor's stated trajectory.
【DE/AE decisive priorities】...
【Method-check issues to resolve】sampling/measures/identification/reproducibility ...
【Contribution reframes needed】...
【New analyses planned】...
【Response-letter structure】numbered, change+location per comment
【Similarity re-check + disclosure updates】...
【Round】expect multiple; changelog maintained
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jom-skillsDrafts the point-by-point response letter for a Journal of Management R&R, handling reviewer conflicts, editor-first strategy, and 50-page limit compliance.
Plans an M&SOM revision around DE/AE priorities and drafts a point-by-point response letter preserving operations centrality and the 32-page cap.
Plans and drafts point-by-point response letters for JAMS R&R revisions, prioritizing editor concerns and strengthening theoretical/managerial contribution.