--- name: journal-of-operations-management description: Use when targeting Journal of Operations Management (JOM) or deciding whether an empirical / survey-based / behavioral operations-and-supply-chain manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Journal of Operations Management (journal-of-operations-management) ## Journal positioning The Journal of Operations Management (JOM) is a leading empirical home for operations and supply-chain management research, with a long tradition of survey-based, behavioral, and theory-driven empirical work. It is OM's empirical flagship in the way M&SOM anchors analytical OM: JOM rewards papers that test or build operations theory with strong primary or secondary data, and it takes construct measurement and research design seriously. This is the OM "JOM" — distinct from the management *Journal of Management*. The readership is the empirical OM and SCM community. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the publisher's JOM site and the editorial submission system. ## When to trigger - The author names JOM (the operations-management journal, not the management *Journal of Management*) as the venue. - An empirical, survey-based, behavioral, or theory-testing OM/SCM paper needs an empirical OM flagship. - A modeling-heavy or descriptive operations paper needs re-framing around an empirical theoretical contribution. - The author needs JOM's desk-reject risks and a credible OM / MS alternative list before submitting. ## Scope & topic fit - Empirical operations and supply-chain management: sourcing, supplier relationships, operations strategy, quality, and process management. - Survey-based research with rigorous construct development and measurement. - Behavioral operations: experiments and field studies on operational decision-making. - Theory-driven empirical work using secondary/archival data, with identification appropriate to the operations question. ## Method & evidence bar - Theory-driven empirics: the paper must develop and test operations theory, not just report associations; hypotheses (or an inductive model) follow explicit logic. - Survey work needs validated constructs, attention to common-method bias, reliability/validity evidence, and a defensible sampling frame. - Archival/secondary-data work needs credible identification (DiD/IV/RDD/experiments) and robustness. - Behavioral studies need adequate power, sound design, and replicability; measurement and manipulation checks must be reported. ## Structure & house style - The front end frames an operations theoretical gap and develops hypotheses or a grounded model with explicit logic. - Methods sections are transparent about constructs, measurement, sampling, and identification; appendices carry scales and robustness. - Results report operational magnitudes and effect sizes, not only significance; the discussion cashes in the theoretical and managerial contribution. - Writing emphasizes the contribution to OM theory and practice. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Journal of Operations Management author guidelines / information for authors" and follow the current publisher version. - Re-check word/length limits, abstract format, anonymization for double-blind review, reference style, and structured-abstract requirements if any. - Re-check the current open-science, data/code availability, and AI-use disclosure policies. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence stating the contribution to operations-management theory. - [ ] Hypotheses (or the inductive model) follow from explicit theoretical logic. - [ ] Constructs are validated; common-method bias and identification concerns are addressed to current standards. - [ ] Results report operational magnitudes; the discussion states theory and practice contributions. - [ ] Length, abstract, anonymization, references, and open-science policy match the current JOM guide. ## Common desk-reject triggers - An atheoretical empirical study ("a survey of practice X in industry Y") with no OM theoretical contribution. - Weak construct validity, unaddressed common-method bias, or no identification for causal claims. - A purely analytical / optimization paper with no empirical OM contribution. - Confusing JOM (operations) with the management *Journal of Management* in scope and framing. ## Re-routing decision - Analytical OM theory and models (supply chain, inventory, service, revenue management) → `manufacturing-and-service-operations-management`. - Broad OM with society audience, sustainability/healthcare operations, analytical or empirical → `production-and-operations-management`. - Broad management insight or empirics across subfields → `management-science` (choose the right department). - OR methodology / optimization for its own sake → `operations-research`; computational → `informs-journal-on-computing`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Journal of Operations Management [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```