| name | amr-writing-style |
| description | Use when polishing the prose and structure of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript to AOM house style and an argument-driven voice. Late-stage polish; it does NOT build theory or check logic — do those first with amr-theory-development and amr-data-analysis. |
Writing Style: AOM House Style, Argument-Driven Prose (amr-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The theory and contribution are settled; now the prose needs polish
- The draft reads like a literature review or an essay, not a built argument
- Sections are present but the manuscript does not "flow" toward the contribution
- You are unsure of AMR's structural conventions
AMR's structure (durable form)
AMR conceptual articles follow a recognizable arc. Verify exact requirements on the current
AOM author page, but the durable shape is:
- Introduction — the theoretical puzzle. Open with the tension, not a definition or a
dictionary opening. State the puzzle, the conversation, and your move within the first
two pages. Tell the reader what theory cannot currently do and that this paper fixes it.
- Theoretical development. Constructs defined → assumptions → relationships +
mechanisms → propositions (each earned by argument). This is the body and the bulk.
- The conceptual model / figure integrated where it clarifies the argument.
- Discussion. Contribution (what's new, differentiated), boundary conditions, and
implications for theory, future research, and practice.
There is no methods, results, or data section — AMR is theory-only. The reasoning is
the contribution, so make the Why vivid (Whetten, AMR 1989, DOI 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371);
define constructs precisely and consistently (Suddaby, AMR 2010, DOI 10.5465/amr.2010.0419).
Exemplar to study for narrative: Oliver's "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes"
(AMR 1991, DOI 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002) — puzzle → typology → propositions → implications,
no methods, no results.
Voice and prose discipline
- Argument, not survey. Every paragraph should advance the theory. If a paragraph only
reports what others found, it is review filler — cut or repurpose it to set up your move.
- Define before you use. A construct's first appearance carries its definition; use the
exact same label every time afterward. Terminological drift reads as conceptual fuzziness.
- Signpost the logic. "Because... it follows that..."; "This implies..."; "We therefore
propose..." Make the inferential moves visible — at AMR the prose is the proof.
- Propositions in the text are set off and numbered, each immediately following the
argument that earns it.
- Precision over flourish. AMR prizes conceptual precision. Avoid vague intensifiers
("very important," "highly significant") and metaphors that do no theoretical work.
- No hypothesis vocabulary. Never write "we hypothesize," "H1," "results show," "we
find," or "supported / not supported." AMR uses propositions because nothing is tested;
that vocabulary is AMJ's and reads immediately as wrong-journal to AMR editors.
- AOM style mechanics. Use the Academy of Management Style Guide: author–date in-text
citations, full reference list, Times New Roman 12-point body text, double-spaced manuscript,
1-inch margins, no page numbers or running heads in the submitted manuscript, and an abstract
of no more than 200 words. Treat "APA-style" as shorthand for AOM's author–date mechanics,
not a claim about a named APA edition.
Verify current manuscript length limits before submitting.
Submission-stage facts such as AMR's current editor, no-fee policy, and ScholarOne link
belong in
amr-submission and resources/official-source-map.md, not in prose edits.
Self-edit passes
- Puzzle pass: is the tension on page 1–2, or buried?
- Survey pass: highlight every sentence that only reports prior work; if it does not set up your move, cut it.
- Definition pass: is every construct defined once and labeled consistently?
- Inference pass: can a skeptical reader follow each step from premise to proposition?
- So-what pass: does the discussion differentiate the contribution, not restate it?
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A literature review masquerading as theory: paragraphs of "X found... Y found..."
- A dictionary or epigraph opening that delays the puzzle
- Construct labels that drift (same idea, three names)
- Buried propositions the reader must hunt for
- Empty intensifiers and decorative metaphor substituting for precise claims
- A discussion that summarizes the paper instead of stating what is newly thinkable
Output format
【Puzzle on page 1–2?】yes / fix
【Review-essay filler】[paragraphs to cut/repurpose]
【Construct-label consistency】ok / drift at: ...
【Logic signposting】explicit / add at: ...
【AOM style】citations + references conform (verify)
【Next step】amr-submission
