From organization-studies-skills
Calibrates expectations for the Organization Studies (OS) peer-review cycle, explaining desk-screen odds, decision types, and how to interpret editor/ reviewer signals.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/organization-studies-skills:orgstud-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You want to calibrate desk-reject odds and timeline before or after submitting
OS runs a double-anonymized, developmental review handled by a co-editor with (typically) 2–3 reviewers drawn from the relevant conversation. The European, theory-first culture shapes what reviewers do: they engage your theoretical contribution and your use of social theory as the primary axis — not just method execution. Reviewers here often co-develop the theory across rounds, which is why OS R&Rs can be intellectually demanding and multi-round, but also why a serious R&R is a genuine signal of interest. Expect reviewers who know the canonical works in your conversation intimately.
Desk-screen is real and theory-driven. The most common desk-rejects are not method failures but "interesting phenomenon, no theoretical contribution," wrong-fit ("belongs at a sibling journal"), or superficial engagement with the literature it claims to advance. A clean dataset will not save a paper with a thin theoretical move.
| Outcome | What it usually means | Your move |
|---|---|---|
| Desk reject | Fit/contribution problem caught pre-review | Re-diagnose with orgstud-topic-selection / orgstud-contribution-framing; consider sibling fit |
| Reject (post-review) | Reviewers see a fatal theoretical or evidentiary gap | Read for whether the core idea survives; usually reposition, don't resubmit |
| Reject & resubmit / high-risk R&R | Promising but currently not a contribution | Treat as a near-rewrite of the theory; only proceed if you can make the move land |
| Major revision | The contribution is real; theory/evidence need substantial development | The expected good outcome; plan a multi-issue revision (orgstud-rebuttal) |
| Minor revision | Rare on first round; contribution accepted, polishing needed | Address precisely; do not reopen settled points |
orgstud-workflow can route the repositioning.A letter reads: "The phenomenon is fascinating and the fieldwork is impressive, but the contribution to institutional theory remains underdeveloped; we invite a resubmission if the authors can sharpen the theoretical move." Two authors read this oppositely — one as encouragement, one as a polite reject. The correct read at OS: this is a high-risk reject-and-resubmit, not a routine major revision. The praise is for the empirics; the binding problem is the theoretical contribution, which means the revision is closer to a partial rewrite than a polish. Proceed only if you can genuinely make the institutional-theory move land (route to orgstud-theory-development and orgstud-contribution-framing); otherwise reposition. Treating it as a minor revision and resubmitting with cosmetic edits is the fast path to a final reject.
【Outcome】desk reject / reject / reject-resubmit / major / minor
【Contribution survives?】yes / needs rebuild / no
【Editor's essential threads】the must-address asks
【Theory-level asks】mechanism / literature / reflexivity items flagged central
【Decision】revise for OS / reposition (which sibling)
【Next skill】orgstud-rebuttal (if revising)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin organization-studies-skillsExplains Organization Science's decentralized senior-editor review model, conflict-of-interest routing, double-blind submission preparation, and how to interpret decision letters.
Decides which orgstud-* sub-skill to invoke next during Organization Studies manuscript preparation, from topic through rebuttal.
Explains the JMS editorial and peer-review process: desk screening, double-blind review, reading decision letters. Does not draft rebuttals.