jar-contribution-framing
GitHub针对JAR论文，将实证结果转化为明确的会计知识贡献。用于在引言和讨论中清晰阐述因果效应、经济机制及增量价值，避免仅描述结果或强调新颖性，确保符合期刊对经济重要性的要求。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jar-contribution-framing -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jar-contribution-framing",
"description": "Use when turning empirical results into an explicit contribution to accounting knowledge for a Journal of Accounting Research (JAR) manuscript — stating what we now know about how accounting information is produced, disclosed, audited, or used, and why it matters economically. Frames the contribution; it does not run the analysis (jar-data-analysis) or polish prose (jar-writing-style)."
}
Contribution Framing (jar-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
- You have clean, identified results but the "so what for accounting" is thin
- A referee says "the contribution is incremental" or "this confirms what we knew"
- The discussion section restates results without stating what we learned
- You need intro and discussion contribution sentences that survive referees
What counts as a contribution at JAR
JAR rewards research that changes our understanding of how accounting information is produced, disclosed, audited, regulated, or used in markets and contracts. A publishable contribution typically does one of: (a) identifies a previously unestablished causal effect of an accounting/disclosure/regulatory feature; (b) adjudicates between competing economic theories using a setting that separates them; (c) documents an economically important mechanism (not just a reduced-form correlation); or (d) introduces a new measure or setting that reopens a literature. The increment must be economically consequential — for investors, analysts, creditors, auditors, standard-setters, or managers — not merely statistically detectable.
Write the contribution explicitly
- One contribution sentence. "We show that [accounting feature] causally affects [outcome] through [mechanism], using [identifying variation]." Put a version in the intro and the discussion.
- Relative to the closest paper. State the increment over the 2-3 nearest studies (from jar-literature-positioning), not over a generic gap.
- Economic magnitude. Translate the coefficient into something a referee feels (basis points of spread, percentage of a standard deviation, dollars), not just a star.
- Implications. Spell out what changes for theory, for empirical accounting practice, and — where relevant — for standard-setters/regulators (a recurring JAR audience).
- Boundaries. State the scope conditions and what the design cannot identify; honest limits strengthen credibility.
Match the framing to the track
For a Ray Ball JAR Annual Conference submission the contribution should speak to the year's theme and to a broad accounting audience; for a Registered Report, frame the contribution around the question and design (since acceptance is outcome-independent), making a well-identified null genuinely informative.
Checklist
- A single, explicit contribution sentence appears in both intro and discussion
- The increment is stated relative to the closest prior papers
- Economic magnitude is interpreted, not just statistical significance
- Implications for theory, practice, and (where relevant) regulators are drawn
- Scope conditions and what the design cannot identify are stated
- The framing matches the track (regular / conference theme / Registered Report)
Anti-patterns
- Restating results as if description were contribution.
- "First to study X" as the contribution (novelty ≠ importance).
- Significance without magnitude: stars with no economic interpretation.
- Overclaiming causality beyond what the identification supports.
- Ignoring the nearest paper, leaving the increment ambiguous.
Before/after: the contribution sentence
- Before (description as contribution): "We find that firms with higher disclosure quality have lower bid-ask spreads, consistent with prior literature."
- After (identified, magnitude-bearing contribution): "Using the staggered adoption of [mandate] as identifying variation, we show that mandated disclosure causally narrows bid-ask spreads by roughly 8% of a within-firm standard deviation, operating through reduced adverse selection rather than changed trading volume — evidence that the disclosure channel, not a liquidity-provision channel, drives the information-environment result."
The after sentence carries the identifying variation, the economic magnitude, the mechanism, and the adjudication in one breath — the shape a JAR discussion section is expected to defend.
Worked magnitude translations (referees want to feel the effect)
| Raw output | Referee-legible framing |
|---|---|
| "β = 0.012, p < 0.01" | "an 8% of within-firm-SD change in spread" |
| "significant coefficient on treatment" | "≈ 3 bps of the average 40 bps quoted spread" |
| "positive association with cost of capital" | "≈ 15 bps of annual implied cost of equity" |
Track-fit checklist
- Regular submission: contribution speaks to a specific accounting conversation, not a method.
- Ray Ball Conference: contribution ties to the year's theme and a broad accounting audience.
- Registered Report: contribution is framed around the question and design, so a well-identified null is genuinely informative (acceptance is outcome-independent).
Output format
【Contribution sentence】one sentence (causal / adjudication / mechanism / new measure)
【Increment vs. closest work】[...]
【Economic magnitude】interpreted (bps / %SD / dollars)
【Implications】theory / empirical practice / standard-setters
【Scope & limits】what the design cannot identify
【Track framing】regular / Ray Ball theme / Registered Report
【Next step】jar-tables-figures or jar-writing-style
Resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— official JAR/Chicago Booth/Wiley URLs (accessed 2026-06-01)../../resources/external_tools.md— data sources and tooling
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:24
