tar-workflow
GitHubTAR期刊论文工作流路由技能，用于指导会计学期刊投稿流程。根据当前稿件状态（如选题、理论、数据、回复审稿意见等）自动推荐对应的专用子技能，确保从选题到拒稿复议的每一步骤精准执行。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill tar-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "tar-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which tar-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
The Accounting Review Workflow (tar-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill; it tells you which tar- skill to use right now* for your TAR manuscript.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as The Accounting Review (TAR) — the flagship journal of the American Accounting Association (AAA, aaahq.org), covering archival/empirical and analytical accounting across financial accounting, capital markets, auditing and assurance, management accounting, taxation, and accounting information systems. TAR's stated policy is explicitly open to all rigorous research methods and names no preferred methodology; the single overriding publication criterion is the significance of the contribution to the accounting literature. In practice the published mix is dominated by large-sample archival/empirical work, alongside a substantial experimental stream and analytical/theory papers (待核实 as a characterization, not policy). The action editor and a minimum of two reviewers will ask "what do we learn about accounting that we did not know?" as hard as "is identification clean?"
Editorial team: Senior Editor Mohan Venkatachalam (Duke, Fuqua) — sitting since June 2026, succeeding Kathryn Kadous (Emory); named Lead Editors (Hribar, Maydew, Mittendorf, Rennekamp) handle assignments, decision letters, desk rejections, and appeals; Ad hoc Editors cover specialized topics/methods. Submission fee ($285 member / $680 non-member, re-verified 2026-06-23) and full roster — 待核实; confirm on the official AAA pages.
When to trigger
- "What should I do next?" with a half-built TAR manuscript
- You have a clean archival sample and a result but no sharp accounting contribution
- A reviewer pushes on identification, the data-authenticity/code-access policy, or contribution and you are unsure which stage is the bottleneck
- You received a TAR decision letter and need to switch into response mode
- You keep bouncing between identification, theory/model, and writing without a plan
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Idea is vague; not sure it is contribution-driven or TAR-fit | tar-topic-selection |
| Predictions are descriptive; no economic mechanism or model | tar-theory-development |
| Front end reads as gap-spotting; the accounting conversation not joined | tar-literature-positioning |
| Design may not identify the effect (endogeneity, selection, timing) | tar-methods |
| Have data; unsure about estimator, clustering, FE, robustness | tar-data-analysis |
| Results exist but the "so what for accounting" is thin | tar-contribution-framing |
| Tables/figures cluttered, off Chicago style, or not self-explanatory | tar-tables-figures |
| Prose is jargon-heavy, passive, or buries the result | tar-writing-style |
| Ready to submit; need the Editorial Manager preflight | tar-submission |
| Want to understand how TAR double-blind review/decisions work | tar-review-process |
| Received an R&R; need to plan and draft the response | tar-rebuttal |
Default order
tar-topic-selection— lock a contribution-driven question with TAR fittar-theory-development— build the economic mechanism / analytical model and predictionstar-literature-positioning— engage the focal accounting literature; state the conversationtar-methods— design identification (DiD, IV, RDD, setting, shock) matched to the questiontar-data-analysis— estimator, fixed effects, clustering, robustness, data-authenticity codetar-contribution-framing— turn results into an explicit accounting contributiontar-tables-figures— finalize main exhibits in Chicago house styletar-writing-style— full-manuscript prose polish (result front-loaded, active voice)tar-submission— Editorial Manager preflight (anonymization, AI disclosure, ORCID, files)tar-review-process— set expectations for double-blind, multi-round reviewtar-rebuttal— after an R&R, plan revisions then draft the response letter
tar-tables-figuresandtar-writing-styleare late-stage polish. Do not invoke them while identification or the contribution is still unsettled — you will polish an argument you may still have to rebuild.
Decision shortcuts
- "I have a finding but no accounting story" →
tar-topic-selectionthentar-contribution-framing - "My intro says 'no one has studied X'" (gap-spotting) →
tar-literature-positioning - "My treatment is endogenous / staggered adoption" →
tar-methodsthentar-data-analysis - "Reviewer asks for the code that builds my Compustat sample" →
tar-data-analysis(data-authenticity) - "An analytical model needs comparative statics" →
tar-theory-development - "Submitting this week" →
tar-submission - "Got an R&R with two reviewers + the editor" →
tar-review-processthentar-rebuttal
Submission-day upload set
When every routing symptom above is cleared, the Editorial Manager package should look like this — if any piece is missing, the annotation names the skill that produces it:
editorialmanager.com/accr upload set (TAR, double-blind)
├── manuscript.pdf # <=55 pages initial; Chicago Manual of Style;
│ # no author names, acknowledgments, or
│ # self-identifying citations gaps → tar-writing-style / tar-tables-figures
├── title-page.pdf # separate file: authors, affiliations,
│ # ORCID iDs, acknowledgments gaps → tar-submission
├── online-appendix.pdf # robustness tests and variable
│ # definitions cited from the text gaps → tar-data-analysis
├── data-authenticity/ # code that rebuilds the sample from
│ # raw sources (e.g., Compustat pull
│ # -> final panel) gaps → tar-data-analysis
└── disclosures/ # AI-use disclosure; submission fee
# $285 member / $680 non-member
# (待核实 on the AAA pages) gaps → tar-submission
Difference vs. JAR / JAE and the AAA family
- TAR: AAA flagship; open to all rigorous methods, contribution-to-the-literature is the bar; double-blind review; Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/accr; 55-page initial limit; Chicago Manual of Style.
- JAR (Journal of Accounting Research, Chicago Booth) and JAE (Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier) are the other two "top-3" archival accounting journals but are separately owned and run their own review and style norms — use a venue-specific stack.
- Journal of Financial Reporting is the one AAA journal using single-blind review; TAR is double-blind.
If your study is purely a methods demonstration with no accounting contribution, TAR is the wrong venue.
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
tar-theory-developmentand report a correlation — TAR rejects atheoretical "regression-mining." - Do not let
tar-tables-figuresbeautify exhibits before identification and the contribution are settled. - Do not let
tar-rebuttaldraft a response letter before you have actually revised the manuscript and the code. - Do not treat
tar-writing-styleas a substitute for a clean identification strategy or a real contribution.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:29
