スキルを探す

Use when the empirical identification strategy is the bottleneck for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — exogenous standard / regulatory changes (event study, DID), PSM, Heckman, IV — and you need to stress-test the design before drafting tables. Prefers standard/regulatory shocks as the cleanest accounting identification source.

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 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).

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 the theoretical engine of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — choosing a social/organizational theory tradition (institutional theory, governmentality, Bourdieu, actor-network theory, practice theory, psychological process theory) and making it generate the analysis rather than decorate it. Builds the lens; it does not collect data (aos-methods) or frame the contribution (aos-contribution-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 building the exhibits of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — data-inventory and evidence tables for qualitative work, cell-means and process-test tables for experiments, and figures that carry theoretical weight — in Elsevier-compatible format. Builds exhibits; it does not run the analysis (aos-data-analysis).

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 running the final pre-submission preflight for an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — Editorial Manager files (anonymized manuscript, separate title page, declarations), Elsevier policies (competing interests, AI, ethics), and open-access decisions. Checks readiness to submit; it does not handle the post-decision response (aos-rebuttal).

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 need to understand how Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) evaluates a manuscript — triage by the joint Editors-in-Chief, double-anonymized review by interdisciplinary referees, the meaning of each decision type, and how to read the editor's letter. Explains the process; it does not draft the revision response (aos-rebuttal).

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 an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) revise-and-resubmit arrives — planning revisions that may include recoding field data, new experimental conditions, or deepened theorizing, and drafting the point-by-point response to an interdisciplinary reviewer panel. Drafts the response; it does not run new analysis (aos-data-analysis) or the final preflight (aos-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 designing the study for an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — qualitative field studies (access, case logic, interviews, observation), behavioral experiments, surveys, historical/archival inquiry, or theory-laden archival designs, each with the ethics and site-anonymity groundwork done early. Designs the inquiry; it does not run the coding or estimation (aos-data-analysis).

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 analyzing the material of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — coding and interpreting qualitative field data, estimating experimental and survey models, or running theory-laden archival analyses, with an audit trail appropriate to each tradition. Analyzes and reports; it does not design the study (aos-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 deciding which amr-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a theory-building manuscript from theoretical-puzzle framing through developmental-review revision for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

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 running the final pre-submission preflight for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — ScholarOne portal, AOM format and length, abstract, anonymization for review, references, ethics/originality, and required files. Theory-only journal; there is no data-availability or replication step.

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 need to understand the Academy of Management Review (AMR) developmental, multi-round review and interpret a decision letter focused on theoretical novelty and logical soundness. Explains the process and decision types; it does NOT draft the response document (that is amr-rebuttal).

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 response document for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) Revise & Resubmit — structuring point-by-point replies that show the theory was genuinely strengthened, not just defended. Drafts the response; revise the manuscript's theory FIRST (amr-theory-development / amr-data-analysis) before writing the letter.

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 choosing and applying a theory-construction method for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — building constructs, defining their domain, specifying relationships, articulating the underlying logic/mechanisms, and setting boundary conditions. This is the THEORY-CONSTRUCTION craft, NOT empirical method; AMR publishes no datasets, no measures, and no statistical tests.

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 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 drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on OpenReview, covering the response window before meta-review, reviewer discussion dynamics, score-change strategy, flagging review issues to the area chair, anonymity rules, and deciding between responding now versus revising for a later ARR cycle.

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 planning an ACL project calendar across ACL Rolling Review cycles, covering cycle selection against conference commitment windows, backward planning from an ARR deadline, the review-response-meta-review timeline, commitment decisions, resubmission loops to later cycles, and camera-ready through ACL Anthology publication.

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 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.

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 theoretical puzzle is the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — deciding whether an idea is theory-worthy and AMR-fit before any theorizing begins. Frames the puzzle; it does NOT build constructs (that is amr-theory-development) or design any empirical study (AMR has none).

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 revising an AAAI manuscript for broad-AI-audience fit, a first-page contribution statement legible to non-specialist Phase-1 reviewers, two-column readability, concise novelty claims, reproducibility-checklist alignment, hedged limitations and ethics, and policy-aware framing of AI-system and capability claims.

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 packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-run the interaction claims.

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 preparing an accepted AAMAS paper for the IFAAMAS open-access camera-ready, covering author de-anonymization, proceedings metadata, two-column reflow of game figures and learning curves, resolving rebuttal-stage promises, registration, in-person presentation, and the public code and environment release for a multiagent paper.

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。