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).
SkillScore100Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 22 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 16 of 22 without it.
Without skill73%
With skill100%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Uses the bracketed header 【Phenomenon】
Uses the bracketed header 【AMJ fit verdict】
Uses the bracketed header 【Division / framing home】
and 4 more in the full report
6 fixed16 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+27 pp
Tokens
+21%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-26%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v122 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 6 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 6
Prompt
I am evaluating an empirical OB topic idea for AMJ regarding employee emotion regulation under high workload. What specific skill and task action should be designated as the final step in the evaluation block?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Specifies amj-theory-development (build mechanism + hypotheses) as the next step
Missed
Passed
case-22 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md69 linessingle file
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: