Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jms-writing-style
jms-writing-style
GitHub针对JMS期刊的写作风格优化技能，聚焦理论导向与论点清晰化。解决引言冗长、摘要缺乏贡献声明及语言晦涩问题。规范哈佛引用、英美拼写一致性、字数限制及AI使用声明，提升稿件学术表达力与合规性。
Trigger Scenarios
引言前三页才点明主旨
摘要仅描述活动未陈述贡献
行文充斥术语或像方法报告
审稿人批评贡献不清晰
未满足期刊格式规范
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jms-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jms-writing-style",
"description": "Use when prose and structure are the bottleneck for a Journal of Management Studies (JMS) manuscript — landing the abstract and intro, sustaining a theory-forward narrative, and meeting house conventions (Harvard refs, UK\/US English, 200-word abstract). Polishes the writing; it does not invent the contribution (jms-contribution-framing) or run the analysis."
}
Writing Style (jms-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The introduction takes three pages to reach the point
- The abstract describes activity ("we examine…") instead of stating the contribution
- The prose is jargon-dense, hedged, or reads like a methods report rather than an argument
- A reviewer says "I had to dig for the contribution" or "the writing obscures the idea"
- House conventions (Harvard referencing, abstract length, UK/US English consistency) are unmet
The JMS voice
JMS prose is theory-forward and argumentative — every section advances the contribution, and the reader is told why this matters early and often. It is scholarly but not opaque: the journal's international readership rewards clarity over field-insider shorthand. Write the paper around the claim, not around the chronology of what you did. Do this section by section.
Section-by-section moves
- Title: signal the phenomenon and the theoretical angle; avoid a method-only title.
- Abstract (≤200 words): phenomenon → tension → what you did → what you found → what it contributes. State the contribution in the abstract, not just the activity. Provide 4–6 keywords in alphabetical order (verify;
检索于 2026-06；以官网为准). - Introduction: by the end of page two the reader should know the phenomenon, the tension, the contribution, and the design. Open with the puzzle, not a literature tour.
- Theory section: lead each block with its claim; cite to build the argument, not to demonstrate reading. For qualitative work, narrate the journey from data to model.
- Methods/findings: write findings as an argument, not a data dump; for qualitative work, weave quotes into theoretical claims rather than listing them.
- Discussion: open by restating the contribution (from
jms-contribution-framing), then implications for theory, then for practice, then bounded limitations and future directions.
House conventions to enforce
- Harvard author-date referencing throughout: "(Author, Year)" in text, alphabetical reference list, page numbers for quotes "(Author, Year, p. XX)". Verify against current author guidance.
- UK or US English — pick one and be consistent.
- Double-spaced throughout including notes and references; endnotes only, kept minimal (no footnotes).
- Declare any use of AI (including copy-editing) per current policy.
- Keep total length within 10,000–13,000 words inclusive of tables, figures, and references; over-length manuscripts can be returned before review.
Prose discipline
- Cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that…"); start sentences with their subject.
- Replace nominalisations with verbs ("we theorise" not "a theorisation is offered").
- One idea per paragraph, with a topic sentence that states the claim.
- Define each construct once, then use the term consistently — do not switch synonyms.
Checklist
- The contribution is stated in the abstract and by page two of the intro
- Each section leads with its claim, not its activity
- Qualitative quotes are woven into theory, not listed
- Abstract ≤200 words; 4–6 alphabetical keywords
- Harvard author-date referencing applied consistently; UK/US English consistent
- Double-spaced, endnotes only; AI use declared
- Total length within the inclusive 10,000–13,000-word budget
- Constructs defined once and used consistently
Anti-patterns
- Activity abstract: "this paper examines X" with no contribution stated
- Literature-tour intro: pages of citations before the puzzle appears
- Data-dump findings: results listed in run order rather than as an argument
- Quote listing: qualitative quotes stacked without theoretical interpretation
- House-style misses: wrong citation style, over-length, mixed UK/US English, footnotes instead of endnotes
- Hedge fog: so many qualifiers the claim disappears
Output format
【Abstract】contribution stated, ≤200 words, 4–6 keywords? [Y/N]
【Intro】phenomenon+tension+contribution+design by page 2? [Y/N]
【Sections lead with claims】[Y/N] — notes
【House style】Harvard refs · UK/US consistent · double-spaced · endnotes · AI declared? [Y/N]
【Length】within 10,000–13,000 words inclusive? [Y/N]
【Next step】jms-submission
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:48
