orgsci-workflow

Organization Science Workflow (orgsci-workflow)

Overview

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

Default assumption: unless told otherwise, treat the target as Organization Science — the interdisciplinary, theory-driven INFORMS journal about organizations (their processes, structures, technologies, identities, capabilities, forms, and performance) spanning micro (individual/team) to macro (organizational/field/population) levels. Its defining bar is overall contribution: the editorial statement holds that "theoretical novelty is neither necessary nor sufficient," and contributions may come from new theory, data, method, settings, mechanisms, or social-problem/grand-challenge relevance. It is methodologically eclectic, with a signature openness to qualitative and inductive work alongside quantitative, experimental, computational, and formal-analytical research; causal inference is valued but "not necessary and often impossible."

Time-sensitive items: Lamar Pierce (Washington University in St. Louis) is Editor-in-Chief ([email protected]); verify the masthead at pubsonline.informs.org/journal/orsc. A mandatory <500-word contribution statement in the cover letter has been required since June 1, 2023.

When to trigger

• "What should I do next?" with a half-built Organization Science manuscript
• You have inductive field data or a model but no sharpened theoretical contribution
• A senior editor pushes on "what is the contribution to organization research?"
• You received a decision letter and need to switch into response mode
• You keep bouncing between theory, method, and writing without a plan

Routing table

Current symptom	Next skill
Idea is vague; unsure it fits Organization Science (vs. ASQ/AMJ/Mgmt Sci)	orgsci-topic-selection
Theory is thin; mechanism across levels not articulated	orgsci-theory-development
Front end reads as gap-spotting; not joining an organization-theory conversation	orgsci-literature-positioning
Design (qualitative/quant/experiment/computational/formal) may not fit	orgsci-methods
Have data/model output; unsure how to analyze and report it credibly	orgsci-data-analysis
Results exist but the contribution statement is weak	orgsci-contribution-framing
Tables/figures or a process model are cluttered or off house style	orgsci-tables-figures
Prose buries the argument; not in INFORMS author-date style	orgsci-writing-style
Ready to submit; need the ScholarOne + length-policy preflight	orgsci-submission
Want to understand the decentralized senior-editor review process	orgsci-review-process
Received an R&R; need to plan and draft the response	orgsci-rebuttal

Default order

1. orgsci-topic-selection — lock a theory-driven question with Organization Science fit
2. orgsci-theory-development — build the cross-level mechanism / inductive grounded model
3. orgsci-literature-positioning — join an organization-theory conversation
4. orgsci-methods — match design to the question and level of analysis
5. orgsci-data-analysis — analyze and report transparently (including trustworthiness for qualitative work)
6. orgsci-contribution-framing — draft the mandatory <500-word contribution statement
7. orgsci-tables-figures — finalize exhibits / data structure / process model
8. orgsci-writing-style — prose polish in INFORMS author-date style
9. orgsci-submission — ScholarOne preflight (anonymization, ~50-page norm, separate appendix)
10. orgsci-review-process — set expectations for the decentralized senior-editor process
11. orgsci-rebuttal — after an R&R, plan revisions then draft the response letter

orgsci-tables-figures and orgsci-writing-style are late-stage polish. Do not invoke them while the theoretical contribution is still unsettled.

Decision shortcuts

• "I have rich field data but no theory yet" → orgsci-topic-selection then orgsci-theory-development
• "My intro says 'no one has studied X'" → orgsci-literature-positioning
• "An editor said 'interesting but not enough contribution'" → orgsci-contribution-framing
• "Reviewer wants causal identification I cannot get" → orgsci-methods then orgsci-data-analysis (mechanism + design logic over identification)
• "Submitting next week" → orgsci-submission
• "Got an R&R from one senior editor and two reviewers" → orgsci-review-process then orgsci-rebuttal

Difference vs. ASQ / AMJ / Management Science stacks

• Organization Science: interdisciplinary, theory-driven organizations research, micro to macro; eclectic methods with a qualitative/inductive signature; overall contribution over novelty; decentralized senior-editor model; INFORMS / ScholarOne at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orsc.
• ASQ: Cornell/SAGE; deep contextual/qualitative work and bold framing, but not the INFORMS venue.
• AMJ: AOM empirical journal; equal empirical + theoretical bar, page limit, AOM house style.
• Management Science: INFORMS sibling; departmental area-editor routing and a code-and-data disclosure mandate Organization Science does not impose.

Anti-patterns

• Do not chase causal identification at the expense of the contribution — this venue does not require it.
• Do not skip the contribution statement; submissions without it are returned before review.
• Do not treat polish as a substitute for an organization-theory contribution.