Newms workflow

NM&S Workflow Router (newms-workflow)

The orchestrator for a New Media & Society submission. NM&S is the broad interdisciplinary journal on digital media, the internet, and society, and it is methodologically pluralist — so the router's first job is to confirm the work has stakes for new media and society broadly and to send the user to the skill matching their stage and their method.

When to trigger

• Starting a new NM&S paper and unsure where to begin
• Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
• Worried the work reads as a platform case study with no portable argument
• Returning with a decision letter (route to newms-rebuttal)

First question: contribution & method

NM&S asks two things up front. First, does this say something about new media and society, not just about one app or one dataset? Second, what method carries the claim — because design and analysis advice differ sharply:

Method family	Typical evidence	Routing weight
Qualitative — interviews, digital ethnography	interview corpus, fieldnotes, online observation	theory ↔ evidence loops heavily
Critical / theoretical	concepts, close reading, normative argument	theory-building is the spine
Content / discourse analysis	coded texts, posts, images, platform artefacts	coding scheme + intercoder reliability
Computational	scraped/API traces, networks, NLP/ML measures	validation against human labels + data ethics
Mixed-methods	two strands integrated	design must say how strands talk

Routing map (stage → skill)

Idea / fit for NM&S?             → newms-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field?  → newms-literature-positioning
What's the conceptual argument?  → newms-theory-building
Is the design defensible?        → newms-research-design
Is the analysis/inference sound? → newms-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear?          → newms-tables-figures
Does it read for the field?      → newms-writing-style
Data ethics + transparency?      → newms-transparency-and-data
How will it be judged?           → newms-review-process
Ready to submit?                 → newms-submission
Got an R&R / decision?           → newms-rebuttal

Default order

topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data → review-process → submission → rebuttal

Iterate: interview, ethnographic, and critical papers loop theory ↔ evidence many times before the argument settles; do not force them through a single linear pass.

Symptom-to-skill dispatch

NM&S referees judge interdisciplinary significance and method-appropriate rigor together. Most symptoms map cleanly to one sub-skill — use this lookup before defaulting to the linear order.

Symptom you arrive with	Likely root	Route to
"A reader says it's just a platform case study"	fit / framing	newms-topic-selection
"Reviewer says I ignored relevant fields"	cross-field positioning	newms-literature-positioning
"It's called atheoretical / merely descriptive"	no portable concept	newms-theory-building
"Reviewer doubts the sampling / case / coding logic"	design	newms-research-design
"They want reliability / robustness / validation"	analysis	newms-data-analysis
"An exhibit or quote table is unclear"	exhibits	newms-tables-figures
"It reads as technical-only or jargon-heavy"	prose for the field	newms-writing-style
"How was this scraped — was that ethical?"	data ethics	newms-transparency-and-data
"What will reviewers want?"	expectations	newms-review-process
"Submitting tomorrow"	preflight	newms-submission
"Got an R&R"	response letter	newms-rebuttal

Worked micro-example (illustrative routing)

User: "I interviewed 30 gig couriers about the app that ranks them, but a colleague says it 'won't fly
  at NM&S — too niche.'"
Router read: the worry is portability, not data → start at newms-theory-building (name the mechanism:
  algorithmic management as datafied control), then newms-literature-positioning (platform-labor +
  surveillance debates), then newms-research-design (informant logic, saturation, positionality).
Method: qualitative interviews → loop theory ↔ evidence.
Then: newms-tables-figures (a quote-to-claim table) → newms-writing-style → newms-transparency-and-data
  (consent + platform-data ethics for the app screenshots).

The router resists the linear default and sends the interview study to theory and positioning first.

Referee-stage pushback → which skill answers it

• "Not significant for new media and society broadly." → newms-topic-selection then newms-writing-style.
• "Method isn't rigorous for its kind." → newms-research-design in the matching tradition.
• "Scraping looks ethically dubious." → newms-transparency-and-data before re-submission.

Calibration anchors

• Interdisciplinary significance is the gate, not a garnish. The work must reach beyond one platform and one field; route to topic-selection whenever fit is in doubt.
• Method sets the path. Qualitative/critical papers loop theory ↔ evidence repeatedly; computational papers stand or fall on validation + data ethics.
• Confirm volatile specifics (~8,000-word target, abstract length, current editors) on the live page.

Anti-patterns

• Treating NM&S like a single-platform trade outlet — the claim must travel beyond one app or site
• Forcing a regression template onto interview, ethnographic, or interpretive work
• A computational paper with strong metrics but no validation and no data-ethics account
• Forgetting the ~8,000-word target (incl. notes, references, tables) and anonymous-review masking

Output format

【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / ethics / review / submit / rebut
【Method】qualitative / critical-theoretical / content-discourse / computational / mixed
【Route to】newms-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — digital-media data sources + software by method
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official NM&S URLs behind every fact in this pack