From ors-skills
Places an OR/MS manuscript against prior literature by specifying exact technical deltas in model assumptions, results, and algorithmic guarantees. Use when reviewers need a precise comparison to closest papers.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ors-skills:ors-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- Reviewers will ask "how is this different from [closest paper]?"
In Operations Research, positioning is technical, not rhetorical. The reader must see exactly which model assumptions, result strengths, or algorithmic guarantees you change relative to the nearest prior work. Vague "gap" language does not satisfy OR reviewers — they want a precise delta.
| Dimension | Make explicit |
|---|---|
| Generality | Which assumptions you remove or weaken |
| Strength | Optimality / tightness / matching lower bound |
| Efficiency | Complexity or convergence-rate improvement |
| Scope | New problem class, regime, or performance measure |
| Rigor | First provable result where prior work was heuristic |
A short comparison table (prior work × {assumptions, result, complexity}) is the most persuasive OR positioning device.
OR uses author-year citations, e.g., "(Norman 1977)" or "Norman (1977)". Cite the canonical OR sources for the model class and the technique; missing a well-known prior result is a frequent reviewer flag. Keep the reference list in the INFORMS author-year style.
| Referee/AE remark | Underlying gap | Fix that satisfies Operations Research |
|---|---|---|
| "How is this different from [Author year]?" | the closest competitor's delta is implicit | add a row to the comparison table making the {assumption, result, complexity} delta explicit |
| "This duplicates a known result" | a relabeled prior theorem exists | either cite-and-differentiate the regime, or retract the novelty claim |
| "You ignore the learning literature on this" | a parallel stream solved a close variant | place the cross-stream paper; state what its tools cannot give and you add |
| "Citations are dated" | canonical OR sources missing | cite the foundational model-class and technique papers in author-year style |
| "Gap is asserted, not shown" | rhetorical 'gap' language | replace with a per-paper technical delta a referee can check line by line |
Because Operations Research is the INFORMS flagship for methodology, positioning is judged on technical distance — a weaker assumption, a tighter bound, a better rate, a new regime — not on a narrative gap. This is sharper than the managerial-contribution framing used at Management Science, M&SOM, or Journal of Operations Management, where positioning often turns on the decision question rather than the theorem's strength.
Suppose your result is a 1.58-approximation for a stochastic facility-location variant. The closest prior work gives a 2-approximation under an i.i.d.-demand assumption. Naive positioning ("we improve the approximation factor") invites the flag "but they assume less / more." Defensible OR positioning builds the row:
| Paper | Assumption | Guarantee | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (Author year) | i.i.d. demand | 2-approx | O(n²) |
| This paper | correlated demand (weaker) | 1.58-approx | O(n² log n) |
Now the delta is checkable on three axes at once — broader model (correlated demand), tighter guarantee (1.58 vs 2), at a stated complexity cost. That table, not a paragraph, is what converts an OR referee.
【Closest work】3-5 papers with {model, result, complexity}
【Delta】per paper: weaker assumptions / tighter bound / better rate / new regime
【Comparison table】drafted? yes/no
【Canonical cites】present? gaps: [...]
【Next step】ors-methods or ors-contribution-framing
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin ors-skillsGuides writing mandatory contribution statements for Operations Research manuscripts, especially the cover letter (<500 words) and discussion significance claims.
Positions an IJOC manuscript's computational/methodological contribution against OR/MS and CS prior art, identifying the right baselines and frontier.
Positions a POM manuscript within operations literature by anchoring in the target Department's prior work and contrasting with adjacent OM journals.