| name | tar-writing-style |
| description | Use when polishing the prose of a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — front-loading the result, writing for an accounting audience, enforcing Chicago Manual of Style house conventions, the 150-word abstract, and full author anonymization for double-blind review. Polishes prose and style; it does not fix a thin contribution (tar-contribution-framing) or run the submission preflight (tar-submission). |
Writing Style & House Conventions (tar-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The intro buries the result; the reader cannot tell the finding by the end of page 2
- The prose is passive, jargon-laden, or written for a generic business audience
- References are in APA or a reference-manager default rather than Chicago
- The abstract exceeds 150 words or the manuscript leaks author identity
- A reviewer says "hard to follow," "what did you find?", or flags style issues
Write for the accounting reader, result first
TAR's audience is accounting researchers, editors, and a minimum of two expert reviewers. The intro
should, within the first page or two, state the question, the setting/identification, the finding,
and the contribution — do not make the reader wait for the result. Use the standard archival
structure (introduction, hypothesis/model development, research design, results, conclusion) and
keep terminology precise: "discretionary accruals," "abnormal audit fees," "cash effective tax
rate," "cost of equity capital" mean specific things — use them exactly.
TAR house style (verify against the AAA Manuscript Preparation Guide)
- Citations & references: The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) — not APA. Configure your
reference manager to a Chicago author-date style and reconcile by hand.
- Spelling: Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
- Abstract: no more than 150 words, beginning the article file; concrete about question,
setting, finding, and contribution — not a teaser.
- Manuscript format: 12-pt Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch margins, serially numbered
pages; initial submission within the 55-page limit (including references, tables, figures,
appendices).
- AI disclosure statement: placed immediately after the abstract and before the body (drafted
here, finalized in
tar-submission).
Anonymization is a writing task, not just a file task
Double-blind review means the prose itself must not identify the authors. Write self-citations in
the third person ("consistent with prior work (Author 2020)"), not "in our earlier study"; remove
acknowledgments, funding, institution names, and data-provider thank-yous from the manuscript body;
neutralize tell-tale phrasing that points to a known research group.
Prose discipline
- Prefer active voice and short declaratives; one idea per sentence.
- Define every construct at first use; avoid undefined acronyms.
- State hypotheses/predictions in plain directional terms.
- Be precise about causality in words (mirror the calibration from
tar-contribution-framing).
- Cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that...") and redundancy to protect the page budget.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Buried lede: the result appears only in the results section.
- APA references straight from the reference manager (TAR uses Chicago).
- 150-word abstract overflow or a vague teaser abstract.
- Self-identifying prose ("our 2019 paper") defeating double-blind review.
- Imprecise accounting terms used loosely or interchangeably.
- Passive throat-clearing that wastes the 55-page budget.
Output format
【Lede】finding + contribution on page 1–2? yes/no
【House style】Chicago references? Webster spelling? format ok? yes/no
【Abstract】≤150 words and concrete? yes/no
【Anonymization (prose)】third-person self-cites; no inline acknowledgments? yes/no
【Terminology】accounting terms precise and consistent? yes/no
【AI disclosure】drafted for post-abstract placement? yes/no
【Next step】tar-submission
