aos-writing-style

name	aos-writing-style
description	Use when polishing the prose of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — sustained argumentative writing that carries theory and evidence together, a self-contained abstract, disciplined length despite the absence of a hard cap, and full anonymization for double-anonymized review. Polishes prose; it does not run the submission preflight (aos-submission).

Writing Style (aos-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The draft reads as description (field papers) or as a mechanical hypothesis mill (experiments)
• Sections don't argue — the theory, findings, and discussion sit side by side unconnected
• The abstract summarizes the topic instead of the claim
• Anonymization, references, or length discipline still need a pass

The AOS register

AOS prose is essayistic but accountable: long-form argument in which every interpretive move is anchored to evidence and every theoretical term earns its keep. The reader is interdisciplinary — an organizational sociologist and a JDM psychologist may both referee — so write for the intelligent non-specialist: define tradition-specific vocabulary at first use, and never let jargon substitute for reasoning.

• Argue continuously. Each section should advance the claim, not inventory content. Findings sections in field papers interleave excerpt and interpretation — the analysis is in the prose, not after it.
• Voice. First person is normal and honest in interpretive work ("we came to see the budget meetings as…"); keep it analytic, not confessional. Experimental papers use the plain predictive register: theory → prediction → design → result.
• Concreteness. Ground abstractions in the practice: named artifacts (the monthly pack, the risk register), scenes, and actors' words — anonymized but vivid.
• Terminology ledger. Fix one name per concept (construct, practice, site pseudonym, condition label) and hold it identical across abstract, text, exhibits, and appendices.

Length without a cap

AOS publishes long papers and states no rigid word limit in its Guide for Authors (re-check the current guide — norms evolve). Treat that freedom as a discipline test: interpretive papers commonly run 12,000–15,000 words, and every one of them must be load-bearing. Cut scene-setting that does no theoretical work, second examples that prove the same point, and literature reviews of threads the paper never rejoins.

Front matter

• Abstract: one self-contained paragraph — the question, the setting/design, the conceptual answer, and what it changes in the conversation. No citations, no suspense.
• Keywords chosen so both accounting and social-science indexers find the paper.
• Introduction executes the positioned arc (see aos-literature-positioning) and previews the conceptual answer — AOS readers expect to know the claim before the methods.

Anonymization and mechanics

• Double-anonymized review: strip names, affiliations, acknowledgments, grant numbers, and self-revealing phrasing ("in our earlier study at this site") from the manuscript file; cite your own work in the third person.
• Scrub document properties/metadata; keep identifying material on the separate title page only.
• References in the journal's author–date style; reconcile the reference list against the current Guide for Authors rather than trusting the citation manager.
• Declare any generative-AI writing assistance per Elsevier policy (a declaration in the manuscript; AI tools cannot be authors).

The paragraph audit

For a final pass, write each paragraph's job in the margin in five words or fewer ("introduces broker concept", "handles counter-evidence on X"). Paragraphs with no statable job get cut; adjacent paragraphs with the same job get merged. This audit is the cheapest route to AOS-grade density.

Checklist

• Every section advances the argument; excerpts are interpreted where they appear
• Tradition vocabulary defined at first use; no undefined jargon
• Terminology ledger applied across text, exhibits, and appendices
• Length justified paragraph by paragraph despite the absence of a cap
• Abstract self-contained: question, design, conceptual answer, consequence
• Manuscript fully anonymized, metadata scrubbed; author–date references reconciled
• AI-assistance declaration included if applicable

Anti-patterns

• Travelogue field writing: atmosphere and chronology with the analysis postponed to the discussion.
• Hypothesis-mill formatting imposed on interpretive work (H1–H8 scaffolds where no hypotheses exist).
• Theory-section quarantine: concepts introduced early, never used again in the findings' language.
• Citation-armored sentences — three references per clause in place of an argument.
• Anonymization leaks in acknowledgments, footnotes, or file metadata.

Output format

【Register】argumentative throughout? excerpts interpreted in place? ...
【Abstract】self-contained claim stated? ...
【Terminology】ledger applied; jargon defined ...
【Length】words; what was cut and why the rest stays ...
【Anonymity & mechanics】scrubbed; author–date refs reconciled; AI declared ...
【Next step】aos-submission