Jmgmt Tables Figures

Tables & Figures (jmgmt-tables-figures)

When to trigger

• 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:

1. 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.
2. Measurement-model table (CFA). Standardized loadings, CR/ω, AVE, and a discriminant-validity panel (AVE vs. squared correlations or HTMT).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Interaction plot(s). Simple slopes at ±1 SD with axes labeled in construct terms; a region-of-significance band where useful.
6. (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.