agentsclimarketplace

Amj topic selection

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Academy-of-Management-Journal-Skills/skills/amj-topic-selection

Use when scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use amj-theory-development) or position the literature (amj-literature-positioning).From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill amj-topic-selection

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

SKILL.md

5.1 KB, ~1.0k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Topic Selection & AMJ Fit (amj-topic-selection)

When to trigger

  • You have a dataset, a context, or a phenomenon, but no sharp research question
  • You are unsure whether the idea belongs at AMJ vs. its AOM sister AMR (theory-only, no data), or at non-AOM venues ASQ (Cornell/SAGE) or SMJ (Wiley/SMS), or a field journal
  • The question feels like "no one has studied X here" rather than "theory predicts something surprising"
  • You want to pressure-test fit before investing months in data collection

AMJ fit test (all four must pass)

AMJ's mission is "to publish empirical research that tests, extends, or builds management theory and contributes to management practice," and it judges every paper on three criteria: a strong empirical contribution, a meaningful theoretical contribution, and practical relevance. The fit test below operationalizes those criteria.

  1. Phenomenon-grounded but theory-driven. AMJ wants real organizational phenomena (micro OB, macro/strategy, HR, entrepreneurship, organizational theory) examined through a theoretical lens. A purely descriptive or purely methodological paper does not fit.
  2. A theoretical mechanism, not just an empirical association. Ask: why would A affect B, and when? If you can only say "they are correlated," you have a topic, not yet an AMJ paper.
  3. Original data and a defensible design are feasible. AMJ is empirical and welcomes all empirical methods — qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, meta-analytic, and mixed. If you cannot get suitable data of any of these kinds, it is an AMR idea (theory-only, no data), not an AMJ idea.
  4. Surprise or tension. The strongest AMJ questions sit on a tension between theories, a counterintuitive boundary condition, or an unresolved debate — not a confirmation of the obvious.

Choosing the divisional home

AMJ routes manuscripts to divisional action editors. Knowing your home sharpens framing:

If your core construct is...Likely division / framing
Individuals/teams (motivation, leadership, emotion)Micro / OB
Firms/industries (strategy, performance, M&A)Macro / strategy
Selection, training, turnover, careersHR
New ventures, founders, opportunityEntrepreneurship
Institutions, identity, sensemaking, fieldsOrganization theory / OMT

Frame the question in the vocabulary of its home division and cite that division's recent AMJ papers.

From phenomenon to question

  • State the phenomenon in one sentence (what happens in the world).
  • Name the focal theory you will use as a lens.
  • Write the research question as a why/when statement, not a whether statement.
  • Identify the surprising tension: what does naive intuition or a rival theory predict instead?
  • Draft a one-line "potential theoretical contribution" claim and sanity-check it: would a reviewer learn something new about the theory?

Checklist

  • Question is framed as why/when, with an explicit mechanism, not just whether A predicts B
  • There is a tension, puzzle, or boundary condition (not a confirmation of the obvious)
  • The phenomenon is a genuine organizational/management phenomenon, not a methods demo
  • Suitable original data and a credible design are feasible (else it is an AMR idea)
  • Target division identified; 3–5 recent AMJ papers in that division read and notable
  • One-line theoretical-contribution claim drafted and judged non-trivial

Anti-patterns

  • Gap-spotting: "No study has examined X in context Y." A gap is not a contribution; AMJ wants a theoretical reason the gap matters.
  • Borrowed phenomenon, no theory: an interesting dataset with no theoretical question behind it.
  • Wrong venue: a purely conceptual idea (belongs at AMR) or a pure methods/measurement paper.
  • Over-scoping: three theories and ten constructs in one paper — pick the one tension you can defend.
  • Context as the only novelty: "same model, new country/industry" without a theoretical reason the context changes the mechanism.

Output format

【Phenomenon】one sentence (what happens in the world)
【Focal theory / lens】...
【Research question】why/when ...
【Tension / surprise】rival prediction or puzzle ...
【Candidate theoretical contribution】one line ...
【Division / framing home】micro / macro / HR / entrepreneurship / OMT
【AMJ fit verdict】fit / borderline / better at AMR/ASQ/SMJ/field
【Next step】amj-theory-development (build mechanism + hypotheses)

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.