Menu

Individual skill

jms-data-analysis

0upvotes

Use when the execution and credibility of the analysis is the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — regression/SEM and robustness for quantitative work, OR coding, abduction, and trustworthiness for qualitative work. Runs and defends the analysis; it does not design the study (jms-methods) or build exhibits (jms-tables-figures).

Journal-of-Management-Studies-Skills/skills/jms-data-analysis/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,409
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Data Analysis (jms-data-analysis)

## When to trigger

- Estimates are in but reviewers question endogeneity, robustness, or the indirect-effect claim
- A qualitative analysis reaches findings but the path from data to constructs is not auditable
- Effects hinge on a single specification with no robustness
- A mediation/moderation result is reported without the analysis JMS expects
- A reviewer says "the analysis does not support the claim" or "I can't see how you got here"

## The JMS analysis bar — two idioms, one standard

JMS judges analysis by whether it **credibly supports the theoretical claim**, in whichever idiom the study uses. Quantitative work is held to identification and robustness standards; qualitative work is held to **trustworthiness and transparency** standards. Use the path that matches your design; do not import quant criteria (p-values, effect sizes) to judge a qualitative paper, or qualitative looseness into a quantitative one.
Back to top