リサーチ・学習のスキル

Use to understand how Agricultural Systems (AgSy) evaluates a manuscript — single-anonymized peer review with a minimum of two reviewers and an editor decision, desk screening for fit and systems content, what reviewers weigh, and the rapid-review track for Perspectives. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a model — a full theory paper's argument or the structural/conceptual scaffolding behind an empirical AER: Insights short-format manuscript — needs to be made minimal, so it carries the single insight in a few pages. Keeps only what the insight requires; it does not develop a general framework.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when positioning the contribution of an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript against the closest published work in one or two tight paragraphs. Stakes the gap concisely; it does not write the full literature review (there is no room for one).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when positioning an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a systems contribution. AgSy readers span agronomy, modelling, livestock, economics, environment, and food-system science, so the paper must engage the systems and modelling literatures they expect — not only one subfield. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the model setup, equilibrium concept, or proof architecture is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript — the central skill for a theory-first paper. Builds the model to the AEJ: Micro bar (clean, general, well-motivated result); it does not check whether your theorem is correct.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when prose buries the result or the abstract/intro do not land for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript. Applies AEA house style and the theory-paper intro arc; it does not produce the result (see aejmic-theory-model) or build exhibits (see aejmic-tables-figures).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the marginal contribution of an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) manuscript is fuzzy or undersold and must be staked precisely against prior applied-micro work. Positions the contribution; it does not fix the identification (aeja-identification) or the prose (aeja-writing-style).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the contribution of an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript relative to the macro frontier is fuzzy, contested, or undersold. Frames the marginal contribution against quantitative-theory and identified-empirical literatures; it does not fix the identification or the model itself.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when placing the contribution against the policy-evaluation literature and sharpening it as a policy answer for an AEJ: Economic Policy manuscript. Stakes the contribution and the policy-relevant "so what"; it does not write the full introduction or design the identification.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when situating an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference outcomes, ethics review escalation, and resubmission strategy across cycles.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when finalizing tables and figures for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — keeping the main table lean, reporting coefficients with the right precision, and interpreting economic magnitude (not just significance stars) for accounting measures. Use after robustness is settled.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when framing or sharpening a topic for 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) — turning a generic "X affects Y" empirical idea into an accounting contribution anchored in China's institutional setting, accounting theory, and standard-setting / practice relevance. Use before literature review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when writing or verifying the institutional / accounting-standard / regulatory background for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — getting standard clauses, regulatory rules, and effective dates exactly right, since precise institutional detail is a defining bar of this journal. Use before measurement and identification.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when situating an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript in the literature — entering one of the journal's own long-running conversations, engaging the interdisciplinary sources (organization theory, sociology, psychology) those conversations draw on, and marking precisely what the paper adds. Positions the argument; it does not build the theory itself (aos-theory-development).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation. Positions the argument within a literature; it does NOT summarize the field (AMR punishes review-essays) and does NOT build the new theory (that is amr-theory-development).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when building or repairing the literature review for 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) — entering the accounting research lineage (earnings quality, conservatism, audit quality, disclosure, value relevance) rather than piling recent Chinese empirical citations, and positioning the gap as an accounting contribution.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when responding to 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) reviewer reports / an R&R — drafting a point-by-point response letter and 修改说明 that addresses accounting-measure construction, institutional/standard accuracy, identification, and information-mechanism concerns, while keeping the revision anonymous. Use only after the manuscript itself has been revised.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use amj-theory-development) or position the literature (amj-literature-positioning).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when judging whether a management/organization literature is an Academy of Management Annals (Annals)-scale review topic — mature, important, fragmented, and integrable into a new framework — rather than a narrow review. Decides fit and frames the review's animating problem; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or write the proposal (amann-proposal-framing).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when writing the short proposal that gates an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal submitted under the twice-yearly deadlines before any full review is invited. Builds the proposal; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or run the portal preflight (amann-submission).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AAMAS fit, comparing AAMAS with AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and the JAAMAS journal, identifying whether the agents are truly the research object, naming the interaction primitive (solution concept, mechanism, coordination, negotiation), and sharpening the multiagent framing before writing begins.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when positioning an AAMAS submission against multiagent, game-theory, and reinforcement-learning literature spread across AAMAS, AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and JAAMAS, including arXiv and workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, and the cross-community citation coverage AAMAS reviewers expect.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when systematically gathering, coding, and synthesizing a management/organization literature for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the search-and-coverage methodology and the choice of narrative vs. systematic vs. bibliometric integration. Builds the corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the organizing spine (amann-organizing-framework) or write prose.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。