jom-tables-figures

Tables & Figures for JOM (jom-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• Tables are cluttered, inconsistent, or not self-explanatory
• You need the standard empirical-OM exhibit set (descriptives, correlations, models)
• An interaction/contingency effect needs a readable plot
• A field/case/intervention study needs a data-structure or process figure
• You are reconciling exhibits to APA style for Wiley

The empirical-OM exhibit set

A typical JOM empirical paper carries:

1. Sample/measure table — constructs, items, sources, reliabilities (survey) or variable definitions and data sources (archival).
2. Descriptives & correlations — means, SDs, full correlation matrix; reliabilities on the diagonal for survey constructs. Define every operational variable.
3. Results tables — nested regression / FE / SEM / count / survival models in columns, with coefficients, standard errors (note the clustering), fit/diagnostics, and N. Report effect sizes, not just significance.
4. Interaction/contingency plot — simple slopes with significance regions for any moderation (contingency effects are central to OM).
5. Mechanism/process figure — the hypothesized model; for field/case/IBR, a Gioia-style data structure or a process/intervention timeline.

House-style rules

• APA conventions for tables, figures, notes, and references (JOM uses APA; Wiley applies final styling at proof). Keep formatting consistent — at first submission any consistent style is accepted, journal style preferred.
• Number tables/figures; give each a stand-alone title and a complete note (estimator, SE type, significance thresholds, N, units).
• Manuscript body is double-spaced, single-column, 12-point, one-inch margins, numbered pages, no running headers/footers; place exhibits per the author guidelines.
• Every exhibit must be readable without the text and must report the operational units (days, defects per million, inventory turns, on-time %).

Self-explanation test

A reviewer should grasp each table/figure from its title, note, and labels alone. Spell out abbreviations, state the estimator and clustering in the note, and never show a coefficient without an SE and an N.

Anti-patterns

• A correlation table with no reliabilities (survey) or undefined operational variables.
• Reporting stars but no effect sizes / operational magnitude.
• An interaction described in text but not plotted.
• Exhibits that restate the text instead of carrying evidence.
• Inconsistent citation/number style across exhibits.

Exhibit-completeness table reviewers check

Each empirical-OM exhibit has elements without which a reviewer cannot verify the claim. The map below is a practical completeness check; APA and Wiley styling specifics should be confirmed against current author guidelines.

Exhibit	Must contain	Common reviewer complaint
Measures/sample table	Constructs, items, sources, reliabilities (survey) or variable definitions and data sources (archival)	Operational variables left undefined
Descriptives + correlations	Means, SDs, full correlation matrix, reliabilities on the diagonal	No reliabilities; no operational units
Results table	Coefficients, SEs with clustering noted, fit/diagnostics, N, effect sizes	Stars without effect sizes or operational magnitude
Interaction plot	Simple slopes with significance regions	Moderation described in text but never plotted
Mechanism/process figure	Hypothesized model, or Gioia data structure / intervention timeline	Figure restates text instead of carrying evidence

Desk-reject and return triggers on exhibits

• A correlation table with no reliabilities (survey) or with undefined operational variables.
• A coefficient shown without a standard error and an N.
• Significance reported but no operational magnitude (days, defects per million, inventory turns, on-time percentage).
• Inconsistent number/citation style across tables, signaling rushed preparation.

Worked vignette: turning a result into a self-explanatory table

A behavioral-OM experiment finds a fatigue manipulation raises order errors, more so under high time pressure (illustrative). The results table reports the main effect (b = 0.42, SE = 0.11) and the interaction (b = 0.27, SE = 0.09), with N = 180, robust SEs noted, and a partial eta-squared column so magnitude is visible. The note states the estimator, the SE type, the thresholds, and that the outcome is errors per 100 orders — an operational unit. A reader who never sees the body can still grasp the story from the title, note, and labels. The companion plot shows simple slopes with significance regions, satisfying the contingency-effect expectation native to OM.

Exhibit objections reviewers raise, with the fix

• "The table is not self-explanatory." Add a complete note (estimator, SE clustering, thresholds, N, operational units) and stand-alone title so it reads without the text.
• "You report significance but not magnitude." Add effect sizes and translate them into operational consequences.

Output format

【Exhibit set】measures / descriptives+corr / models / interaction / mechanism
【Result table】estimator, SE clustering, effect sizes, N present? ...
【Interaction plot】simple slopes + regions? ...
【Process/data-structure figure】(field/case/IBR) ...
【APA consistency】...
【Next step】jom-writing-style