The descriptive/correlation table is missing, mislabeled, or inconsistent with the text
A SEM/HLM table is dense and a reviewer cannot find the focal effect
An interaction is claimed but never plotted
A meta-analysis lacks a forest plot or a publication-bias funnel
Exhibits are eating into the 50-page (inclusive) budget and need to be tightened
The exhibits a JOM paper is expected to carry
JOM follows APA (7th) style, and reviewers (many of them methodologists) expect a conventional, scannable exhibit set:
Table 1 — Means, SDs, reliabilities, and correlations. Variables in a sensible order; reliabilities (α/ω) on the diagonal; significance shown but always paired with the values; full Ns and a clear note. This is the most-read table; errors here cost credibility.
Measurement-model table (CFA). Standardized loadings, CR/ω, AVE, and a discriminant-validity panel (AVE vs. squared correlations or HTMT).
Hypothesis-test table (SEM/HLM/regression). Steps/models in columns; the focal coefficients visually findable; effect sizes (ΔR²/f²) and CIs reported, not just stars.
Theoretical-model figure. Boxes and arrows mapping one-to-one to the hypotheses, with hypothesis labels (H1, H2…) on the paths — it should be readable without the text.
Interaction plot(s). Simple slopes at ±1 SD with axes labeled in construct terms; a region-of-significance band where useful.
(Meta-analysis) forest plot + funnel/PET-PEESE plot and a moderator table reporting k, N, corrected effects, CIs, and credibility intervals.
House-style and significance conventions
APA significance notation is permitted (* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001), but always report the coefficient/effect size and ideally a CI — stars alone are not evidence of magnitude, and JOM methods reviewers say so.
Each table is self-contained: full variable names (no undefined abbreviations), Ns, the estimator, and what the cells are (b, β, OR, r).
Figures must be legible in grayscale and at print size; do not encode meaning in color alone.
Working under the 50-page guillotine
Because the 50-page limit counts tables and figures (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准), every exhibit competes with text. Tactics: merge the descriptives and correlations into one Table 1; move secondary robustness tables and the full CFA item list to the online supplement; keep only exhibits that carry a hypothesis test or the model itself in the main paper. Cut any table the text fully narrates.
Reading exhibits the way a JOM methods reviewer does
A methodologically literate reviewer scans the exhibits before the prose to sanity-check the claims. They will: (a) confirm the diagonal of Table 1 carries reliabilities and that no inter-construct correlation is so high it threatens discriminant validity; (b) check that the squared focal correlation is consistent with the structural coefficient (a large path with a near-zero correlation is a red flag); (c) verify the hypothesis table's degrees of freedom and N match the sample described in methods; and (d) confirm every interaction in the hypothesis table also appears as a plot. Build exhibits anticipating exactly this scan, so the numbers cross-validate each other.
Meta-analysis exhibits specifically
For a JOM meta-analysis the exhibits are the evidence. The moderator table should report, per moderator level: k, total N, the artifact-corrected mean effect, its 95% CI, the 80% credibility interval, and a heterogeneity statistic (I² or Q). A forest plot orders effects so the reader sees the spread; a funnel plot (with trim-and-fill or PET-PEESE overlay) shows the bias picture. Tie each moderator row back to the competing theory it tests, so the table reads as a theory adjudication rather than a coefficient list.
The theoretical-model figure as the paper's spine
In a JOM empirical paper the model figure is the single most consulted exhibit: reviewers use it to check that the hypotheses, the methods, and the results all line up. Draw it so the antecedent, mechanism (mediator), moderator, and outcome are each a labeled box; put the hypothesis number on each path; and show the moderator entering on the path it is theorized to qualify, not floating beside it. If a path in the figure has no corresponding hypothesis, or a hypothesis has no path, a reviewer will read it as sloppiness about the theory. Keep control variables out of the figure.
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Generate exhibits from the fitted result, not by retyping numbers (the usual source of
body-vs-appendix drift). Full map: execution-with-mcp. Journal of Management covers empirical management broadly (including meta-analysis); the chain below serves primary causal / panel work.
Tables:etable (multi-model columns) or did_summary_to_latex straight from the
result_id.
Figures:plot_from_result / enhanced_event_study_plot / event_study_table —
axis units and the SE/clustering note baked in.
Every note names the estimator + clustering and states the effect size in
interpretable units.
