| name | orgsci-writing-style |
| description | Use when polishing the prose of an Organization Science manuscript — front-loading the organizational argument and contribution, writing for an interdisciplinary micro-to-macro audience, and conforming to INFORMS author-date house style. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the theoretical contribution is still unsettled. |
Writing Style (orgsci-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The prose buries the argument or the contribution
- The paper reads to only one audience (pure micro or pure macro) when it should reach both
- Citations and formatting are not in INFORMS author-date style
- You are doing a final polish before submission
Write for an interdisciplinary, micro-to-macro audience
Organization Science readers come from organization theory, strategy, sociology, economics, and psychology, and work at every level from individual to population. Write so that a macro reader follows a micro paper and vice versa: define constructs on first use, name the level of analysis explicitly, and translate discipline-specific jargon into organizational terms. The opening pages must make the organizational phenomenon, the conversation joined, and the contribution unmistakable — front-load the argument rather than withholding it until the discussion.
INFORMS house style
- Citations: author-date, e.g., Norman 1977 or (Norman 1977); reference list alphabetical by author in journal style.
- Format: double-spaced, 1-inch margins, Garamond- or Times-New-Roman-like fonts (explicitly no Helvetica Narrow); minimize footnotes; PDF or MS Word.
- Abstract: no more than 250 words.
- Anonymization: for double-anonymous review, remove author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements, and write self-citations in the third person or suppress them.
- Length: respect the all-inclusive ~50-page norm; tighten prose rather than spilling into the appendix what belongs in the argument.
Voice and structure
- Prefer active voice and a clear narrative line; the journal values readable theory.
- For inductive papers, let the data structure and process model anchor the narrative; for deductive papers, foreground the mechanism and propositions.
- State boundary conditions as part of the theory, not as hedging.
- Avoid effusive throat-clearing and avoid combative framing of prior work — engage it generously.
Anti-patterns
- A first page that withholds the contribution until page 30.
- Discipline jargon left untranslated for the cross-level audience.
- Passive, nominalized prose that hides who does what.
- Helvetica Narrow, numeric citation styles, or an over-250-word abstract.
Style execution pass for Organization Science
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock a level map, a mechanism paragraph, and the cover-letter contribution statement; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: interdisciplinary organization reviewers who ask whether the mechanism travels across levels of analysis.
- Do the pass: Rewrite the first two pages so each paragraph starts from the venue-level claim, not from chronology or method inventory; preserve exact source-map limits and move technical overflow to appendix or supplement.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
- Sibling guard: compare against AMJ for empirical management framing, ASQ for organization-theory depth, Management Science for formal/quantitative operations; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Submission-ready gate: do not give final advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for upload-week rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Cross-level paragraph test
For every major claim paragraph, mark three labels in the margin:
| Label | Question |
|---|
| Level | Is this individual, team, organization, field, or population-level? |
| Mechanism | What process links this paragraph to the contribution? |
| Boundary | Where would this claim not travel? |
If two consecutive paragraphs change level without a bridge sentence, add one. If a paragraph has no mechanism label, it is probably background. If the boundary is "all organizations," the claim is too broad for this journal's reviewers.
Output format
【Front-loading】phenomenon + conversation + contribution clear on page 1?
【Audience reach】readable to both micro and macro readers; jargon translated?
【House style】author-date, no Helvetica Narrow, abstract ≤250 words, anonymized
【Length/voice】within ~50-page norm; active, non-combative
【Cross-level test】level / mechanism / boundary labels resolved
【Next step】orgsci-submission
