--- name: smj-workflow description: Use when deciding which smj-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills. --- # Strategic Management Journal Workflow (smj-workflow) ## Overview This is the router. It does not do the work of any specialized skill — it tells you **which smj-* skill to use right now** given where your manuscript stands. Default assumption: unless you say otherwise, the target is the **Strategic Management Journal (SMJ)** — the flagship strategy journal published by Wiley for the Strategic Management Society (SMS), founded 1980 and led by four **Co-Editors** (verify the current roster on the SMS masthead; as of 2026 it includes Benner, Ethiraj, and Gaba). SMJ wants a clear contribution to **strategy theory** (firm performance, competitive advantage) backed by rigorous, identification-aware empirics. It is highly selective (third-party estimates ~7% acceptance — UNVERIFIED), uses **double-blind** review, and requires **two abstracts** (research summary + managerial summary, ≤125 words each), **five keywords**, and **APA** references within a ~40-page budget. Generic "management" framing and unaddressed endogeneity are the two fastest paths to rejection. If the paper's engine is entrepreneurship or internationalization, the SMS siblings **SEJ** or **GSJ** may fit better than SMJ. ## When to trigger - "What should I do next?" on an SMJ-targeted paper - You have a draft and need to find the binding constraint - You keep bouncing between theory, methods, and writing without a plan - You received SMJ reviewer comments and need to switch into revision mode ## Routing table | Current symptom | Next skill | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Idea is vague; unsure it is a *strategy* question (performance / advantage) | `smj-topic-selection` | | Hypotheses are atheoretical or read as "predictions," not theory | `smj-theory-development` | | Lit review is a list; no positioning against the strategy conversation | `smj-literature-positioning`| | Design unclear: sample, unit of analysis, measures, identification | `smj-methods` | | Performance regression with no endogeneity / reverse-causality fix | `smj-data-analysis` | | Reviewers may ask "so what for strategy?"; contribution is thin | `smj-contribution-framing` | | Too many tables; exhibits not self-contained; no path/effect figure | `smj-tables-figures` | | Prose is jargon-heavy, hedged, or buries the argument | `smj-writing-style` | | Ready to submit; need preflight (dual abstracts, 5 keywords, APA, format) | `smj-submission` | | Want to understand the review timeline / action-editor process | `smj-review-process` | | Received an R&R; need a response strategy and letter | `smj-rebuttal` | ## Default order 1. `smj-topic-selection` — lock the strategy question (performance / competitive advantage) 2. `smj-theory-development` — build the theoretical mechanism and hypotheses 3. `smj-literature-positioning` — position against the live strategy conversation 4. `smj-methods` — sample, unit of analysis, measures, identification design 5. `smj-data-analysis` — estimate, and explicitly defeat endogeneity / selection / reverse causality 6. `smj-contribution-framing` — sharpen the contribution to strategy theory 7. `smj-tables-figures` — finalize self-contained exhibits 8. `smj-writing-style` — full-draft polish (do this late) 9. `smj-submission` — preflight (dual abstracts, 5 keywords, APA, page budget, anonymization) 10. `smj-review-process` — understand what happens after submission (Co-Editor screen → action editor) 11. `smj-rebuttal` — after the R&R decision > `smj-writing-style` is a **late-stage polish**. Do not polish prose while the identification strategy or the theoretical contribution is still unsettled. ## Decision heuristics - "I have data but no strategy story" → `smj-topic-selection` - "My hypotheses are just signed correlations" → `smj-theory-development` - "My intro never names whose conversation I'm joining" → `smj-literature-positioning` - "My DV is firm performance and my X is a strategic choice" → `smj-data-analysis` (selection into the choice is the #1 threat) - "A reviewer could say 'this is management, not strategy'" → `smj-contribution-framing` - "I have nine tables" → `smj-tables-figures` - "I submit tomorrow" → `smj-submission` - "I got a Major Revision" → `smj-review-process` then `smj-rebuttal` ## Differences vs. AMJ / ASQ / AMR stacks If the paper's center of gravity is general organizational behavior, HRM, or micro-OB, the [Academy of Management Journal](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/amj-skills) stack fits better. If the contribution is purely conceptual with no data, use an [AMR](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/amr-skills) theory-only stack. SMJ's distinctive bar: the dependent construct should connect to **firm performance or competitive advantage**, and the empirics must survive an **endogeneity** interrogation. ## Anti-patterns - **Do not** skip `smj-theory-development` and jump to estimation — SMJ reviewers read theory first. - **Do not** let `smj-tables-figures` polish exhibits before the identification strategy holds. - **Do not** let `smj-rebuttal` draft a response letter before you have actually revised the manuscript. - **Do not** treat this as a generic management workflow; every stage must reconnect to strategy. - **Do not** forget SMJ's dual-abstract / 5-keyword / APA requirements until submission day, or route an SEJ/GSJ-shaped paper to SMJ. ## Templates & resources - [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — SMJ scope, Co-Editors, dual-abstract/keyword/reference rules, and the SMS journal family - [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — strategy data sources and analysis packages across the pipeline