pom-tables-figures

Tables & Figures (pom-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• Exhibits are cluttered, off house style, or not self-explanatory
• You are over the 32-page cap and must decide what moves to the e-companion
• A reviewer cannot follow the contribution from the table/figure sequence

The POM exhibit budget: main paper vs. e-companion

POM's 32-page limit counts tables, figures, appendices, and references (1.5 spacing, 11-pt). Treat exhibits as a scarce budget: only the displays that carry the core operational insight belong in the main paper; full proofs, large parameter grids, extended robustness, and supplementary tables go to the unlimited online e-companion. Number e-companion exhibits distinctly (e.g., EC.1, Table EC.2) and cross-reference them stably from the main text.

Match the exhibit to the method track

• Analytical/modeling: a model schematic (decision timeline, information structure); a comparative-statics or sensitivity figure showing how the optimal policy moves with cost, lead time, or competition; a table of structural results. Lead with the managerial reading of the curve, not just its monotonicity.
• Empirical OM: a descriptive/summary table; the main results table with effect sizes and standard errors; robustness columns. Put units in decision-relevant terms (cost, fill rate, days).
• Behavioral OM: treatment-by-condition means with error bars; manipulation-check evidence.
• Operations data science: validation/performance tables plus a figure showing the operational gain (e.g., cost or service improvement from predict-then-optimize), not just accuracy.
• Simulation: plots with confidence intervals across sensitivity ranges.

Make every exhibit decision-legible

• Title and note each exhibit with its decision implication, not only the statistical or mathematical object.
• State operational units explicitly.
• Ensure a Department Editor can grasp the contribution from the first one or two exhibits.
• Avoid duplicating main-paper content in appendices or the e-companion.

Checklist

• Core insight exhibits in the main paper; depth in the e-companion
• Exhibits counted against the 32-page budget
• Operational units and decision implications labeled
• E-companion exhibits numbered (EC.*) and cross-referenced stably
• No duplication between main paper, appendix, and e-companion

Exhibit pass for Production and Operations Management

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the operational decision, the performance metric, and the implementable lever; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: POM reviewers who want operational insight tied to production, service, supply-chain, or platform decisions.

• Do the pass: For every table or figure, state the estimand or object, sample or case base, uncertainty display, and one sentence the exhibit proves for the venue audience.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against Management Science for broader OR/MS theory, Operations Research for method-first optimization, MSOM for manufacturing/service operations depth; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【Exhibit】table / figure / schematic / appendix item
【Purpose】mechanism / result / robustness / implication / method detail
【Placement】main paper / e-companion (EC.*)
【Problem】readability / page budget / missing units
【Revision】specific design change
【Next step】pom-writing-style