| name | smr-writing-style |
| description | Use when revising prose for a Sociological Methods & Research (SMR) manuscript — methods-paper introduction arc, ASA citation style, the ≤150-word non-parenthetical abstract, and clear exposition of estimands, assumptions, and results. Edits prose and conformance; does not derive or simulate. |
SMR Writing Style
Use this to make the prose match a methods journal. SMR readers are methodologists who want the
contribution stated early, the assumptions visible, and the math legible — and they want ASA style and
the abstract rules honored exactly, because conformance signals seriousness.
The methods-paper introduction arc
Open in this order (model it on resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md):
- The methodological problem in an applied setting — what goes wrong when researchers use the
current method, stated concretely, not "X has received much attention."
- Why existing methods fail — the gap, named, not a literature tour.
- The contribution — develop / evaluate / correct, in one proportional sentence (from
smr-method-contribution).
- The properties and evidence — what you prove, what the simulation shows, what the illustration
demonstrates, each labeled by evidentiary status.
- The applied payoff — what researchers can now do, and that usable software is released.
A compact roadmap closes the introduction; do not over-signpost.
The abstract (a hard, checkable rule)
- ≤150 words and no parenthetical citations (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). SAGE allows
non-parenthetical citations ("Smith (2015) showed…") but not "(Smith 2015)". Rewrite any parenthetical
cite or drop it.
- The abstract must name the method, the problem it solves, and the evidence type — not just the
topic. A methods abstract that reads like a substantive abstract signals scope confusion.
Exposition discipline for math-heavy prose
- State the estimand before the estimator; state assumptions near the result they support.
- Short interpretation over algebra restatement: after a theorem, say what it means for a user, do
not re-narrate the derivation.
- Label evidentiary status in the prose: "we prove," "the simulation shows," "we conjecture." A
methods reader tracks these precisely.
- Define notation once, use it consistently; a methods paper cannot afford symbol drift.
ASA style and house conventions
- In-text citations and references in ASA style; dataset references in DataCite style (检索于
2026-06；以官网为准). Use a reference manager configured for ASA rather than hand-formatting.
- Keep the title page separate from the main document for double-anonymized review; remove
self-identifying phrasing ("in our previous paper") from the body.
- Disclose generative-AI tool use in the back matter when applicable; if none was used, no
acknowledgement is needed.
Before/after micro-rewrites in the SMR register
- Before: "Latent class analysis has received considerable attention in recent years." → After:
"When classes are weakly separated, standard LCA enumeration selects the wrong number of classes in
a majority of realistic samples." (opens on the failure, not the fashion)
- Before: "Equation (7) follows from substituting (5) into (6) and rearranging." → After: "Equation
(7) says the bias grows with the imbalance ratio: applied users with rare exposure groups are hit
hardest." (interprets, does not re-derive)
- Before: "Our results suggest the estimator performs well." → After: "We prove consistency under
A1–A3; the simulation shows the nominal 95% interval covers between 93.1% and 95.4% across designs."
(labels evidentiary status and quantifies)
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Substantive-paper opening: "much attention has been paid to…" instead of the methodological gap.
- Parenthetical citations in the abstract: a direct violation of the stated rule.
- Algebra narration: restating the derivation instead of interpreting the result.
- Status blur: simulation regularities written in the language of proof.
- Hand-formatted citations: ASA inconsistencies that signal carelessness at a methods venue.
- Deanonymizing phrasing left in the body under double-anonymized review.
Output format
[Prose status] ready / needs revision / not ready
[Intro arc] complete / missing step (which)
[Abstract] words=<n>, parenthetical cites=<n>, names method+problem+evidence? yes/no
[Style] ASA + DataCite applied? yes/no
[Anonymization] clean / risk where
[Next SMR skill] smr-software-and-reproducibility
