From journal-of-management-skills
Helps match research design to theoretical claims for JOM manuscripts — construct validity, common-method bias, endogeneity, multilevel structure, and meta-analysis coding protocols.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/journal-of-management-skills:jmgmt-methodsThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The design may not match the theory's level, timing, or causal claim
JOM welcomes all empirical methods — survey, experiment, archival panel, multilevel field study, qualitative, and meta-analysis — and judges on fit and rigor, not a preferred method. JOM's research-methods identity (it explicitly covers research methods and runs methods-focused reviews) means design choices are scrutinized closely.
| Theoretical claim | Design that earns it |
|---|---|
| Causal effect of a manipulable cause | Experiment (lab/online/field), or natural experiment |
| Process unfolding over time | Multi-wave panel; longitudinal/lagged design |
| Firm/strategy outcome from archival cause | Panel archival with fixed effects + an endogeneity strategy |
| Cross-level mechanism (team→individual) | Multilevel/nested data analyzed with HLM, not OLS |
| Synthesis across a literature | Meta-analysis with a pre-registered coding protocol |
A two-study design (field study for generalizability + experiment for the causal mechanism) is a recognized JOM strength — it buys internal and external validity at once.
JOM rewards study programs that triangulate rather than merely accumulate. A canonical pairing is a field study (external validity, real outcomes) plus an experiment (causal mechanism, manipulation of the antecedent). Decide what each study is for — generalizability, causal identification, or mechanism evidence — and make sure together they license the central claim. A second study that merely re-runs the first in a new sample adds length without adding inferential leverage, and the 50-page limit punishes it.
【Design】experiment / panel-archival / multilevel survey / qualitative / meta-analysis
【Hypothesis-design fit】each H testable? notes ...
【CMB plan】procedural remedies ...
【Endogeneity strategy】instrument / NE / FE / DiD / matching ...
【Measures】validated? new (piloted)? CFA + discriminant?
【Levels】theory / measurement / analysis aligned? aggregation (ICC, r_wg) ...
【Power & sampling】frame, N, power for interactions ...
【Meta only】coding / agreement / artifact model / bias checks ...
【Next step】jmgmt-data-analysis
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin journal-of-management-skillsDesigns Journal of Management Studies manuscripts by matching research design (qualitative case/ethnography, process/longitudinal, survey, archival, experiment, multi-method) to theoretical questions, with first-class qualitative rigor.
Designs the causal research design for AMJ-management manuscripts — matching method (archival, survey, experiment, multi-method) to theoretical questions. Addresses common-method bias, endogeneity, and measurement threats before data collection.
Matches research design to theoretical claims for JAMS manuscripts, covering construct validity, survey/SEM, secondary-data identification, experiments, and meta-analysis.