This is the router. It tells you which orgstud- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Organization Studies (OS) — the flagship European organization-theory journal published by SAGE for the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS), founded 1980. OS rewards papers that make a genuine theoretical contribution to organization studies — institutional theory, process and practice theory, sensemaking, power and critique, sociological and historical approaches to organizing. It is distinctively strong on qualitative, processual, and theoretically ambitious work and prizes conceptual depth over hypothesis-counting.
Operational tells that you are at OS and not a sibling: review is double-anonymized (a separate, identity-bearing title page; the manuscript itself anonymized); the cap is 13,000 words including references and appendices; the abstract is unstructured, ≤300 words; you supply 5–7 keywords, four drawn from the OS ScholarOne keyword list; submission is via ScholarOne (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies). The journal sits on the FT50 generalist-management list. Editors-in-chief are Renate Meyer and Paolo Quattrone (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). Re-verify volatile specifics on the SAGE OS and EGOS pages.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Phenomenon is interesting but its fit with OS's theory-first scope is unclear | orgstud-topic-selection |
| The theoretical engine (mechanism / process model) is thin or relabels the finding | orgstud-theory-development |
| Contribution vs. the conversation OS owns is fuzzy or undersold | orgstud-literature-positioning |
| Design and its match to the question (qualitative/process/quantitative) need work | orgstud-methods |
| Coding, the data structure, or estimation/robustness need execution | orgstud-data-analysis |
| The one-sentence theoretical contribution is not sharp | orgstud-contribution-framing |
| Data structures, process figures, or tables are hard to read | orgstud-tables-figures |
| Prose buries the argument; the European theoretical register is missing | orgstud-writing-style |
| Ready to submit via ScholarOne; need a preflight on anonymization/format | orgstud-submission |
| Want to understand the developmental review cycle / decision odds | orgstud-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need a response-letter strategy | orgstud-rebuttal |
orgstud-topic-selection — lock the theoretically generative phenomenonorgstud-theory-development — build the mechanism / process modelorgstud-literature-positioning — stake the contribution in OS's conversationorgstud-methods — design (qualitative/process/historical/quantitative) that fits the questionorgstud-data-analysis — make the data-to-theory ladder visibleorgstud-contribution-framing — sharpen the one-sentence theoretical claimorgstud-tables-figures — data structures, process models, exhibitsorgstud-writing-style — the discursive European register (abstract + intro last)orgstud-submission — ScholarOne preflight (anonymization, word cap, keywords)orgstud-review-process — calibrate the developmental cycleorgstud-rebuttal — after the R&R
orgstud-writing-styleis late-stage polish; do not rewrite the intro before theory and evidence settle. Unlike a variance-template journal, at OS the theory is the deliverable, soorgstud-theory-developmentandorgstud-contribution-framingare the load-bearing steps, not the methods or tables.
OS spans several theory-driven archetypes, and the binding constraint differs by archetype. Read the archetype, then enter the chain at the right link.
| Archetype | Likely first bottleneck | Enter at |
|---|---|---|
| inductive/process ethnography | data-to-theory transparency + process model | orgstud-theory-development → orgstud-data-analysis |
| institutional / field-level study | what is novel for neo-institutional theory | orgstud-literature-positioning |
| critical / power / reflexive | the critical theoretical contribution, not just critique | orgstud-theory-development |
| conceptual / essay (no new data) | a clearly novel theoretical move readers can use | orgstud-contribution-framing |
| quantitative organization theory | mechanism the design illuminates (not the estimator) | orgstud-theory-development → orgstud-methods |
A user says: "My ethnography of a merger is rich, but a reviewer says it 'reads like a case report' and 'doesn't move institutional theory.'" That is two OS pushbacks — the data-to-theory ladder is invisible (owned by orgstud-data-analysis) and the contribution to the institutional conversation is unstated (owned by orgstud-contribution-framing with positioning in orgstud-literature-positioning). Build the Gioia-style data structure and a process model first, then name the theoretical move; only then return to orgstud-writing-style.
resources/official-source-map.md or not marked 检索于 2026-06【Target】Organization Studies (SAGE / EGOS)
【Current bottleneck】fit / theory / positioning / design / evidence / framing / exhibits / style / submission / revision
【Archetype】inductive-process / institutional / critical / conceptual / quantitative
【Next skill】<one orgstud-* skill>
【Reason】why this is the binding constraint
【Source check】official facts verified or marked 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准 / 待核实