jom-workflow

Journal of Operations Management Workflow (jom-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which jom- skill to use right now* for your JOM manuscript.

Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as JOM — the flagship outlet for original, empirical operations and supply chain management research, published by Wiley on behalf of the Association for Supply Chain Management (ASCM, formerly APICS), established 1980, eight issues a year, on the FT50 list. JOM's defining bar is that operations must be at the heart of the research question, not just in the context, and the work must be empirical — "it is the observation that renders the research empirical." JOM explicitly does not publish purely analytical models or optimization techniques ("these belong in operations research, industrial engineering, or analytical OM journals"). Reviewers and Department Editors ask "is the operations phenomenon real and observed?" as insistently as "is the theory advanced?"

Editorial structure: Co-Editors-in-Chief Elliot Bendoly (Ohio State) and Rogelio Oliva (Texas A&M); the journal routes every submission to one of 12 Departments, each with its own Department Editors. Verify the current masthead and roster before relying on names. Fees, the APC, abstract limit, and exact length rules change — confirm on the ASCM/JOM and Wiley pages (some are 待核实 in resources/official-source-map.md).

When to trigger

• "What should I do next?" with a half-built empirical OM manuscript
• You have operational data and a result but no clear OM-theoretic story
• A reviewer/Department Editor pushes on "is operations really the heart of this?" and you are unsure which stage is the bottleneck
• You received a JOM decision letter (R&R or reject-and-resubmit) and need to switch into response mode
• You are unsure which of the 12 Departments should route your paper

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Idea is vague; unclear if operations is the heart and if it is JOM-fit	jom-topic-selection
Hypotheses are descriptive; no OM mechanism (behavioral/operational logic)	jom-theory-development
Front end reads as a gap; the OM/SCM conversation is not engaged	jom-literature-positioning
Design may not match (survey vs archival vs field vs experiment vs IBR)	jom-methods
Have data; unsure about measurement, CMB, endogeneity, estimator	jom-data-analysis
Results exist but the "so what for OM theory and practice" is thin	jom-contribution-framing
Tables/figures cluttered, off APA/house style, or not self-explanatory	jom-tables-figures
Prose is jargon-heavy, passive, or buries the operations argument	jom-writing-style
Ready to submit; need Department routing, cover-letter protocol, checklist	jom-submission
Want to understand the asymmetric double-anonymous review before/after submit	jom-review-process
Received an R&R; need to plan and draft the point-by-point response	jom-rebuttal

Default order

jom-topic-selection → jom-theory-development → jom-literature-positioning → jom-methods → jom-data-analysis → jom-contribution-framing → jom-tables-figures → jom-writing-style → jom-submission → jom-review-process → jom-rebuttal

Bottleneck-to-skill diagnosis

When the next step is unclear, diagnose from the symptom rather than the calendar. The table reads the most common JOM-specific failure signals; route accordingly and confirm scope questions against the current author guidelines.

Symptom in the manuscript	Likely bottleneck	Route to
Reviewers ask "is operations the heart?"	Scope/fit	jom-topic-selection
Hypotheses describe but never explain operationally	Missing mechanism	jom-theory-development
Measurement or endogeneity concerns dominate the letter	Method-check exposure	jom-data-analysis
"Promising but contribution unclear"	Framing	jom-contribution-framing
Returned before review	Submission-package gap	jom-submission

Worked vignette: routing a stalled manuscript

A team has plant-survey data and a significant result but a decision letter saying the contribution is unclear and the measures are thin (illustrative). The router reads two bottlenecks: a method-check exposure on construct validity and a framing gap on operations-as-heart. Sequence: first jom-data-analysis to firm up the measurement model, then jom-contribution-framing to name the OM belief that changes, and only then jom-rebuttal to assemble the response. Jumping straight to the rebuttal would paper over the decisive measurement issue that the Empirical Research Methods gate will not let pass.

Common routing mistakes

• Treating a contribution complaint as a tables problem and polishing exhibits instead of reframing.
• Entering rebuttal mode before the underlying method-check issue is actually fixed.
• Picking a Department late instead of letting it sharpen the question early.

Output format

【Stage detected】...
【Why】(operations-as-heart? empirical? theory advance?) ...
【Use this skill next】jom-<role>
【After that】...