Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →brycewang-stanford/amj-contribution-framing
Use when turning results into an explicit theoretical contribution for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — the "what new theory do we learn?" statement and the discussion section. Frames the contribution and implications; it does not build the original theory (amj-theory-development) or run the analysis (amj-data-analysis).
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 10 of 22 without it.
and 11 more in the full report
12 fixed9 passed either way0 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 12 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
A reviewer noted that my study on remote team leadership is just an empirical report with incremental value. I need help properly framing my study's contribution and structuring the discussion section for an Academy of Management Journal submission. Please analyze my main finding (that transformational leadership reduces burnout only when role clarity is high) and output a structured framing breakdown. Include the specific category of theoretical contribution my paper fits, 2 to 3 explicit contribution statements, detailed theoretical implications for the leadership literature, actionable practical implications for managers, a reframing of my study's sample limitation into boundary conditions, future research questions, and an evaluation of intro-discussion alignment along with recommended next steps.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Structures the output using Japanese bracket section tags like 【Contribution type(s)】. | Missed | Passed |
| Classifies the theoretical contribution type as boundary. | Passed | Passed |
| Recommends amj-tables-figures, then amj-writing-style as the next step. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
AMJ evaluates every paper on three criteria: a strong empirical contribution, a meaningful theoretical contribution, and practical relevance. The empirical contribution must be paired with a theoretical one: what do we now understand about the theory that we did not before? — and the discussion must also speak to why it matters for management practice. A clear, defensible theoretical answer is essential; strong results with no theoretical advance read as a technical report, not an AMJ paper. AMJ's From the Editors tradition frames this as the "so what?" and "who cares?" tests.
| Contribution type | What it does |
|---|---|
| Reveal a new mechanism | Explains why an established effect occurs |
| Establish a boundary | Shows when an effect holds, weakens, or reverses |
| Adjudicate competing theories | Shows which of two rival predictions holds, and why |
| Integrate / bridge | Connects two literatures into a more general account |
| Challenge an assumption | Overturns a taken-for-granted premise (problematization) |
| Introduce/refine a construct | Conceptualizes and validates a new construct that earns its keep |
State explicitly which type(s) you claim; do not gesture vaguely at "contributing to the literature."
A strong AMJ discussion typically:
Match the discussion to the front end: the contributions you claim here must be the ones you promised in the introduction. A reviewer will check that the intro's promise and the discussion's delivery line up.
test cases passed, vs 10 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.