From pom-skills
Explains Production and Operations Management (POM) journal review process: department editor screening, double-blind review, rigor-and-practice evaluation, and the no-resubmission-after-rejection rule.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/pom-skills:pom-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You want to understand how POM evaluates papers before or after submitting
POM routes each submission to a Department, where a Department Editor owns the paper end to end — this department/college structure is a defining POMS norm, distinct from a single central editor. The Department Editor screens for fit and contribution, then manages double-blind peer review. Founder & Editor-in-Chief Kalyan Singhal leads the journal, with Subodha Kumar as Co-/Deputy Editor-in-Chief (title varies by source; 待核实).
POM applies a twin standard: scholarly rigor and significant interest to practicing operations managers. Expect two lenses:
The practice-relevance gate is real and is reinforced by POMS's award culture (e.g., Wickham Skinner, Martin K. Starr, the J. George Shanthikumar Best Data Science and eOperations Paper, and the Cheryl Gaimon Best Innovation Paper), which honor papers tied to specific departments at the POMS Annual Conference.
POM is stricter than most peers: a paper rejected in one department may not be resubmitted to the same or a different department of the journal unless the decision letter explicitly invited resubmission. Read the letter carefully — only an explicit invitation reopens the door. An R&R ("revise and resubmit") is such an invitation; a reject is not, and reframing a reject as a new submission risks a desk reject and reputational cost.
pom-rebuttal; keep the same Department Editor across rounds. Revised manuscripts still respect the 32-page main-document cap.Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the operational decision, the performance metric, and the implementable lever; then test whether the manuscript addresses POM reviewers who want operational insight tied to production, service, supply-chain, or platform decisions.
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.【Decision type】R&R (major/minor) / reject / reject-with-invitation
【Department】<department + editor>
【Concern axes】fit / contribution / method / practice relevance / presentation
【Resubmission allowed?】yes (invited) / no
【Best action】revise via pom-rebuttal / move to another OM venue
【Next step】pom-rebuttal (if R&R)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin pom-skillsRoutes between pom-* sub-skills for Production and Operations Management (POM) manuscript workflow, from topic selection through rebuttal. Identifies method track and next skill based on current manuscript stage.
Guides targeting Production and Operations Management (POM) journal: assesses fit, framing, method/evidence bar, house style, and desk-reject risks for OM manuscripts.
Explains M&SOM's review process: department routing, DE/AE/referee chain, double-anonymous review, special tracks (OM Forum, Practice Platform, Grand Challenges), and reading decision letters.