| name | jms-writing-style |
| description | Use when prose and structure are the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — landing the abstract and intro, sustaining a theory-forward narrative, and meeting house conventions (Harvard refs, UK/US English, 200-word abstract). Polishes the writing; it does not invent the contribution (jms-contribution-framing) or run the analysis. |
Writing Style (jms-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The introduction takes three pages to reach the point
- The abstract describes activity ("we examine…") instead of stating the contribution
- The prose is jargon-dense, hedged, or reads like a methods report rather than an argument
- A reviewer says "I had to dig for the contribution" or "the writing obscures the idea"
- House conventions (Harvard referencing, abstract length, UK/US English consistency) are unmet
The JMS voice
JMS prose is theory-forward and argumentative — every section advances the contribution, and the reader is told why this matters early and often. It is scholarly but not opaque: the journal's international readership rewards clarity over field-insider shorthand. Write the paper around the claim, not around the chronology of what you did. Do this section by section.
Section-by-section moves
- Title: signal the phenomenon and the theoretical angle; avoid a method-only title.
- Abstract (≤200 words): phenomenon → tension → what you did → what you found → what it contributes. State the contribution in the abstract, not just the activity. Provide 4–6 keywords in alphabetical order (verify;
检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
- Introduction: by the end of page two the reader should know the phenomenon, the tension, the contribution, and the design. Open with the puzzle, not a literature tour.
- Theory section: lead each block with its claim; cite to build the argument, not to demonstrate reading. For qualitative work, narrate the journey from data to model.
- Methods/findings: write findings as an argument, not a data dump; for qualitative work, weave quotes into theoretical claims rather than listing them.
- Discussion: open by restating the contribution (from
jms-contribution-framing), then implications for theory, then for practice, then bounded limitations and future directions.
House conventions to enforce
- Harvard author-date referencing throughout: "(Author, Year)" in text, alphabetical reference list, page numbers for quotes "(Author, Year, p. XX)". Verify against current author guidance.
- UK or US English — pick one and be consistent.
- Double-spaced throughout including notes and references; endnotes only, kept minimal (no footnotes).
- Declare any use of AI (including copy-editing) per current policy.
- Keep total length within 10,000–13,000 words inclusive of tables, figures, and references; over-length manuscripts can be returned before review.
Prose discipline
- Cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that…"); start sentences with their subject.
- Replace nominalisations with verbs ("we theorise" not "a theorisation is offered").
- One idea per paragraph, with a topic sentence that states the claim.
- Define each construct once, then use the term consistently — do not switch synonyms.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Activity abstract: "this paper examines X" with no contribution stated
- Literature-tour intro: pages of citations before the puzzle appears
- Data-dump findings: results listed in run order rather than as an argument
- Quote listing: qualitative quotes stacked without theoretical interpretation
- House-style misses: wrong citation style, over-length, mixed UK/US English, footnotes instead of endnotes
- Hedge fog: so many qualifiers the claim disappears
Output format
【Abstract】contribution stated, ≤200 words, 4–6 keywords? [Y/N]
【Intro】phenomenon+tension+contribution+design by page 2? [Y/N]
【Sections lead with claims】[Y/N] — notes
【House style】Harvard refs · UK/US consistent · double-spaced · endnotes · AI declared? [Y/N]
【Length】within 10,000–13,000 words inclusive? [Y/N]
【Next step】jms-submission
