From jom-skills
Explains the JOM review pipeline: Department-routed structure, asymmetric double-anonymous review, Empirical Research Methods method check, and how to interpret decision letters.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jom-skills:jom-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You want to know what happens to a manuscript after submission
JOM is organized into 12 Departments, each with its own Department Editors and mission. Your submission is routed to a Department (you named two, one preferred). The Department Editor oversees evaluation within that Department's conversation, typically assigning an Associate Editor who manages reviewers from the Editorial Review Board (ERB) and elsewhere. This is analogous to, but distinct from, INFORMS-style departmental area-editor routing.
Review is double-anonymous, with a specific asymmetry: author identities are shared with the Editors-in-Chief and Department Editors but not with reviewers or Associate Editors (and author-blind to those parties; vice versa). Keep the manuscript fully anonymized — reviewers and AEs must not be able to infer you.
JOM has a dedicated Empirical Research Methods Department that not only publishes methods papers but performs method checks on incoming empirical submissions. Expect scrutiny of sampling, measurement, identification, common-method remedies, and reproducibility — an institutionalized methods gate not found at generic top management journals. Weak identification or unvalidated measures can stall a paper here regardless of how interesting the phenomenon is.
Separate the Department Editor/AE's framing (the decisive priorities) from individual reviewer comments. Identify which concerns are about the operations contribution, which are method-check issues (often non-negotiable), and which are presentational. Method-check and identification concerns usually must be fully resolved; some reviewer suggestions can be argued.
The asymmetric anonymity rule has practical consequences worth tabulating. This summarizes JOM's stated structure; confirm the current masthead, Department roster, and anonymity policy against the journal's author guidelines before relying on specifics.
| Party | Sees author identity? | Primary role |
|---|---|---|
| Editors-in-Chief | Yes | Final decision authority; assign Departments |
| Department Editor | Yes | Frames evaluation within the Department's conversation |
| Associate Editor | No (author-blind) | Manages reviewers, synthesizes the recommendation |
| Reviewers (ERB and others) | No (author-blind) | Assess contribution, method, and operations centrality |
Keep the manuscript fully anonymized so AEs and reviewers cannot infer you; supply full identities only in the portal author fields.
A letter routes a healthcare-operations survey study to a Department Editor, who relays an AE synthesis plus two reviews (illustrative). Reviewer 1 wants more controls; Reviewer 2 questions construct validity; the AE's cover note says the operations contribution is promising but the measurement model is underspecified. Reading correctly: the AE's measurement concern is a method-check issue and likely non-negotiable, so it outranks Reviewer 1's controls request. The decision is a genuine R&R, not a soft reject, because the contribution is endorsed. The author should route the measurement fix through jom-data-analysis, treat the controls as a transparent robustness add, and prepare for at least one further round rather than expecting acceptance.
【Stage】routed to Department ... / under AE / decision received
【Who sees identity】EICs + Department Editors (not reviewers/AEs)
【Method-check exposure】sampling / measures / identification / reproducibility ...
【Decision read】desk / reject / major-R&R / minor / accept
【Decisive vs. arguable comments】...
【Next step】jom-rebuttal (if R&R)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jom-skillsExplains the Journal of Management (JOM) masked-review process including desk screening, developmental R&R culture, Review Issue track, and decision letter interpretation.
Explains the JMS editorial and peer-review process: desk screening, double-blind review, reading decision letters. Does not draft rebuttals.
Routes manuscript workflow for Journal of Operations Management submissions, directing users to the appropriate jom-* sub-skill based on current stage (topic selection, theory, methods, etc.).