jmgmt-tables-figures

Tables & Figures (jmgmt-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• The descriptive/correlation table is missing, mislabeled, or inconsistent with the text
• A SEM/HLM table is dense and a reviewer cannot find the focal effect
• An interaction is claimed but never plotted
• A meta-analysis lacks a forest plot or a publication-bias funnel
• Exhibits are eating into the 50-page (inclusive) budget and need to be tightened

The exhibits a JOM paper is expected to carry

JOM follows APA (7th) style, and reviewers (many of them methodologists) expect a conventional, scannable exhibit set:

1. Table 1 — Means, SDs, reliabilities, and correlations. Variables in a sensible order; reliabilities (α/ω) on the diagonal; significance shown but always paired with the values; full Ns and a clear note. This is the most-read table; errors here cost credibility.
2. Measurement-model table (CFA). Standardized loadings, CR/ω, AVE, and a discriminant-validity panel (AVE vs. squared correlations or HTMT).
3. Hypothesis-test table (SEM/HLM/regression). Steps/models in columns; the focal coefficients visually findable; effect sizes (ΔR²/f²) and CIs reported, not just stars.
4. Theoretical-model figure. Boxes and arrows mapping one-to-one to the hypotheses, with hypothesis labels (H1, H2…) on the paths — it should be readable without the text.
5. Interaction plot(s). Simple slopes at ±1 SD with axes labeled in construct terms; a region-of-significance band where useful.
6. (Meta-analysis) forest plot + funnel/PET-PEESE plot and a moderator table reporting k, N, corrected effects, CIs, and credibility intervals.

House-style and significance conventions

• APA significance notation is permitted (* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001), but always report the coefficient/effect size and ideally a CI — stars alone are not evidence of magnitude, and JOM methods reviewers say so.
• Each table is self-contained: full variable names (no undefined abbreviations), Ns, the estimator, and what the cells are (b, β, OR, r).
• Figures must be legible in grayscale and at print size; do not encode meaning in color alone.

Working under the 50-page guillotine

Because the 50-page limit counts tables and figures (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准), every exhibit competes with text. Tactics: merge the descriptives and correlations into one Table 1; move secondary robustness tables and the full CFA item list to the online supplement; keep only exhibits that carry a hypothesis test or the model itself in the main paper. Cut any table the text fully narrates.

Reading exhibits the way a JOM methods reviewer does

A methodologically literate reviewer scans the exhibits before the prose to sanity-check the claims. They will: (a) confirm the diagonal of Table 1 carries reliabilities and that no inter-construct correlation is so high it threatens discriminant validity; (b) check that the squared focal correlation is consistent with the structural coefficient (a large path with a near-zero correlation is a red flag); (c) verify the hypothesis table's degrees of freedom and N match the sample described in methods; and (d) confirm every interaction in the hypothesis table also appears as a plot. Build exhibits anticipating exactly this scan, so the numbers cross-validate each other.

Meta-analysis exhibits specifically

For a JOM meta-analysis the exhibits are the evidence. The moderator table should report, per moderator level: k, total N, the artifact-corrected mean effect, its 95% CI, the 80% credibility interval, and a heterogeneity statistic (I² or Q). A forest plot orders effects so the reader sees the spread; a funnel plot (with trim-and-fill or PET-PEESE overlay) shows the bias picture. Tie each moderator row back to the competing theory it tests, so the table reads as a theory adjudication rather than a coefficient list.

The theoretical-model figure as the paper's spine

In a JOM empirical paper the model figure is the single most consulted exhibit: reviewers use it to check that the hypotheses, the methods, and the results all line up. Draw it so the antecedent, mechanism (mediator), moderator, and outcome are each a labeled box; put the hypothesis number on each path; and show the moderator entering on the path it is theorized to qualify, not floating beside it. If a path in the figure has no corresponding hypothesis, or a hypothesis has no path, a reviewer will read it as sloppiness about the theory. Keep control variables out of the figure.

Checklist

• Table 1 has means, SDs, reliabilities on the diagonal, correlations, Ns, and a clean note
• CFA table reports loadings, CR/ω, AVE, and discriminant validity
• Hypothesis table makes focal effects findable; effect sizes/CIs present, not stars alone
• Theoretical-model figure maps one-to-one to hypotheses, labeled H1…Hk
• Every claimed interaction has a simple-slopes plot
• (Meta) forest + funnel/bias plot + moderator table present
• APA 7th formatting; exhibits legible in grayscale; no color-only encoding
• Exhibit set fits the 50-page budget; secondary tables in the supplement

Anti-patterns

• A correlation table that disagrees with the text (different Ns, signs, or values)
• Reliabilities missing from the diagonal of Table 1
• Stars without magnitudes — a hypothesis table of asterisks and no effect sizes
• A model figure that does not match the hypotheses (extra/missing paths)
• An interaction asserted but never plotted
• Color-dependent figures that vanish in grayscale
• Exhibit bloat that pushes the paper over 50 pages instead of using the supplement

Output format

【Table 1】means/SD/reliabilities(diag)/correlations/N + note? [Y/N]
【CFA table】loadings/CR-ω/AVE/discriminant? [Y/N]
【Hypothesis table】focal effects findable; effect sizes + CIs? [Y/N]
【Model figure】one-to-one with H1…Hk, labeled? [Y/N]
【Interaction plots】every interaction plotted? [Y/N]
【Meta exhibits】forest + funnel + moderator table? [Y/N/NA]
【APA + grayscale + 50pp budget】compliant? [Y/N]
【Next step】jmgmt-writing-style