跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

amj-writing-style

Use for full-manuscript prose polish of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — front-loading the argument, active voice, structure, and AOM house style. Polishes language and structure; it does not create the theoretical contribution (amj-contribution-framing) or fix the analysis (amj-data-analysis).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Writing Style (amj-writing-style)

When to trigger

  • The argument is buried under jargon, hedging, or passive constructions
  • The introduction does not make the contribution clear in its first page
  • Section logic wanders; the reader cannot follow the theory → method → results → discussion arc
  • Sentences are long and nominalized; the "actor doing the action" is hidden
  • This is late-stage polish after the theory, design, and contribution are settled

The AMJ prose standard

AMJ values prose that is rigorous yet readable: the theoretical argument should be visible to a reader from another division. Front-load the point — say what you argue, then support it. Write in the active voice with human/organizational actors as subjects. Hedge precisely (state what the data show), not defensively (avoid stacking "may possibly suggest"). AMJ's From the Editors (FTE) series has devoted whole editorials to storytelling and crafting the introduction — the journal genuinely rewards a paper that "tells a story," so treat narrative arc as a substantive standard, not decoration.

Structure to enforce

Standard full structure: Introduction → Theory & Hypotheses → Methods → Results → Discussion. Each section earns its place:

  • Introduction: phenomenon hook → conversation/tension → question → approach → contribution, on the first 1–2 pages.
  • Theory & Hypotheses: each subsection builds toward a numbered hypothesis with an explicit mechanism.
  • Methods: enough detail to replicate; sample, measures, analysis, validity.
  • Results: report tests in hypothesis order; interpret, do not just narrate the tables.
  • Discussion: theoretical implications first, then practical, limitations, future research.

Sentence- and paragraph-level moves

  • Topic sentences: every paragraph opens with its claim; the rest supports it.
  • Active voice: "We theorize that…" / "Leaders allocate attention…" not "It is theorized that…".
  • De-nominalize: "managers decide" beats "managerial decision-making occurs."
  • Define constructs once, then use the term consistently — no synonym drift.
  • Signpost: connect sections explicitly ("Having established X, we now…").
  • Cut hedging stacks: one calibrated qualifier, not three.
  • Consistent terminology for each construct, hypothesis label, and variable across text, tables, and figures.

House style (verify against the current AOM Style Guide)

  • Follow AOM/APA-style conventions for citations, headings, and references as specified in the current AMJ Style Guide for Authors.
  • US spelling and AOM heading hierarchy; consistent tense (past tense for what you did/found, present for established theory).
  • The full manuscript main body must fit the 40-page maximum (text + references + appendices; tables/figures excluded), double-spaced, Times New Roman 12-pt, 1-inch margins — so trimming targets prose, not just exhibits, and a bloated reference list eats into your page budget.

Checklist

  • Contribution is clear within the first page of the introduction
  • Active voice and concrete actors dominate; passive used only deliberately
  • Every paragraph has a claim-first topic sentence
  • Construct terms are defined once and used consistently everywhere
  • Sections are signposted; the theory→method→results→discussion arc is followed
  • Hedging is calibrated, not stacked
  • Citations/headings/references conform to the current AMJ Style Guide
  • Main body ≤ 40 pages (refs + appendices count; tables/figures do not); 12-pt TNR, double-spaced

Anti-patterns

  • Buried lede: the contribution surfaces only in the discussion.
  • Passive fog: "it was found that" hiding who did what.
  • Jargon walls: dense theoretical terms with no plain-language anchor.
  • Synonym drift: calling the same construct three different names.
  • Defensive hedging: "may potentially possibly suggest" instead of a precise claim.
  • Tense chaos: switching between past and present for the same event.

Output format

【Intro clarity】contribution visible on page 1? yes/no
【Voice】active-voice dominant? flagged passives: [...]
【Topic sentences】claim-first throughout? exceptions: [...]
【Terminology】construct names consistent? drift: [...]
【Structure/signposting】arc intact? gaps: [...]
【House style】AOM/APA citations & headings: pass/fix
【Length】main body vs. 40-page limit (refs+appendices incl.): ok/trim
【Next step】amj-submission

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026年9月27日 更新

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026年9月27日 更新

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026年9月27日 更新

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026年9月27日 更新

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026年9月27日 更新

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills13002026年9月27日 更新

查看 brycewang-stanford 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题