| name | revacc-writing-style |
| description | Use when the prose is the bottleneck for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) manuscript — front-loading the contribution, writing an abstract and introduction that land, and adopting the accounting house voice. Polishes the manuscript; it does not sharpen the contribution claim (revacc-contribution-framing) or build exhibits (revacc-tables-figures). |
Writing Style (revacc-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The introduction buries the result under setup and literature
- The abstract describes the topic but not the finding or its implication
- The prose is passive, jargon-heavy, or reads like a finance paper that forgot the accounting
- An analytical paper drowns the intuition in notation before the reader sees the payoff
- You are doing the final pass and the manuscript voice does not match RAST's
Write the contribution first, everywhere
RAST's first-round-decision culture rewards a manuscript whose contribution is unmissable on page one. The intro should reach the result and its accounting implication within the first page — not after three pages of institutional background. Use the canonical accounting-paper intro arc, compressed:
- The accounting question in one or two sentences, with why it matters for reporting/markets.
- What you do — the setting, design or model, in one paragraph.
- What you find — the headline result with its economic magnitude (or the proposition with its accounting reading).
- Why it is credible — the identification or the modeling move, briefly.
- The contribution — what the field learns and the conversation it joins (one paragraph, not a list).
The abstract has to do real work
Within the journal's limit (~150–250 words, 待核实; 检索于 2026-06), the abstract must state the question, the design/data or the model, the finding with direction, and the implication. Cut "this paper examines"; lead with what is true. A topic-only abstract that withholds the result reads as thin to a journal that often decides in one round.
The accounting house voice
- Active and direct: "We find that mandatory disclosure reduces…" not "It is found that…".
- Construct discipline: define the accounting construct on first use and use it consistently; do not let "disclosure quality" drift between proxies mid-paper.
- Mechanism in the verbs: "tightens monitoring," "relaxes the covenant," "disciplines investment" — the channel should live in the prose, not only the hypotheses.
- Institutional precision without overload: give exactly the reporting/regulatory detail the result needs; relegate the rest.
- For analytical papers: intuition before algebra. State the result in words, then formalize; keep proofs in the appendix.
Sequence and scope
Polish prose last, after identification/model, exhibits, and contribution are settled — rewriting the intro around a result you may still rebuild wastes effort. On a near-final pass: read the intro aloud, ensure each results paragraph maps to a numbered exhibit, and confirm the abstract and intro tell the same story as the conclusion.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Buried lede: the finding arrives on page four after exhaustive background.
- Topic-only abstract: describes the area, withholds the result.
- Passive-voice fog: "it is documented that…" draining agency from the claim.
- Construct drift: the key term silently changes meaning across sections.
- Notation wall: an analytical paper that formalizes before the reader sees the point.
- Finance-in-disguise prose: the accounting payoff never surfaces in the writing.
Output format
【Intro arc】question → what we do → finding → credibility → contribution (all on p.1?)
【Abstract】question + design/model + finding-with-direction + implication; within limit (待核实)
【Voice】active? construct defined once? channel in the verbs?
【Analytical】intuition-before-notation? proofs in appendix?
【Consistency】abstract = intro = conclusion story
【Next skill】revacc-submission
