worlddev-writing-style
GitHub用于优化World Development期刊稿件的写作风格，确保面向跨学科和政策制定者。通过调整引言结构、摘要规范及语言通俗性，提升全球可读性与政策相关性，避免过度专业化术语，强调发展问题的实际意义。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill worlddev-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "worlddev-writing-style",
"description": "Use when the prose, intro, or abstract of a World Development (WD) manuscript fails to reach a multidisciplinary, policy-oriented, global readership. Tunes voice and structure to the WD reader; it does not invent evidence or citations."
}
Writing Style (worlddev-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The intro opens with a methods or literature gap rather than a development problem
- The prose is dense with one discipline's jargon (econometrics or critical-theory) and shuts out the rest
- The abstract reports techniques but not the "so what for development"
- The discussion stops at "we find X" without saying what it means for policy or practice
- The paper reads as written for the author's subfield, not for WD's global, cross-disciplinary audience
Writing for the WD reader
WD is read by economists, political scientists, sociologists, geographers, public-health and practice communities, and policymakers across the global South and North. The house voice is clear, evidence-driven, and accessible across disciplines without being shallow. Two failure modes bracket it: economics papers that read as technical reports with no human or institutional texture, and critical/qualitative papers that disappear into theoretical vocabulary. The WD register sits between — rigorous, but legible to a reader from the next discipline over and useful to someone who must act on the finding.
The intro WD rewards (a sequence)
- Open on the development problem in the world — concrete, with stakes (who, where, why it matters), not a literature gap.
- The tension or puzzle — what is unsettled, contested, or surprising in current understanding.
- What you do and find, in one paragraph, in plain language and real magnitudes.
- How you know it — the design or inferential logic, stated plainly, not buried in citations.
- Why it matters for development — the contribution to understanding AND to policy/practice. WD intros that skip this read as venue-mismatched.
Abstract discipline (verify limits)
- ≤250 words (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准); 3–6 keywords, in English.
- Unstructured, single paragraph; state purpose, approach, key result with magnitude, and the development implication.
- Avoid undefined abbreviations and in-text references; the abstract must stand alone.
- Lead with the finding and its stakes, not the method. A WD abstract that never states what was learned about development is a desk-screen risk.
Cross-disciplinary legibility
- Define discipline-specific terms on first use; assume the reader is smart but from another field.
- Prefer plain causal language calibrated to the warrant ("we find evidence that…", "is associated with…") over both econometric hedging and unearned certainty.
- Name the country/region and context early and concretely; WD readers expect grounded place, not "a developing country."
- Translate every headline number into something a non-economist feels — share of household income, days of schooling, distance to a clinic.
A worked rewrite (illustrative)
Weak: "We exploit a regression-discontinuity design to estimate the LATE of a transfer on log consumption." WD: "Did a national cash-transfer program actually reach the poorest, and did it change their lives? Comparing households just above and below the program's eligibility cutoff in [country], we find consumption rose 18% for those just inside — enough to move a typical family above the food-poverty line — while the very poorest, who lacked the documents to enroll, were left out." Same design; now a cross-disciplinary reader and a policymaker both stay.
Checklist
- Intro opens on a development problem with stakes, not a literature gap
- Method stated plainly; jargon from any single discipline is defined or removed
- Every headline number is translated into human/policy-relevant terms
- Discussion states the implication for policy or practice, not just the finding
- Abstract ≤250 words, 3–6 keywords, finding-first, stands alone (limits re-verified)
- Country/region/context named concretely and early
- Causal language matches the warrant established in identification
Anti-patterns
- A literature-gap opening that delays the development stakes to page 3
- One-discipline jargon (technical econometrics OR dense critical theory) that excludes the rest of the readership
- A discussion that restates results without a "so what for whom"
- An abstract that lists methods but never states what was learned about development
- "A developing country" abstraction instead of a named, situated context
Output format
【Journal】World Development (WD)
【Skill】worlddev-writing-style
【Verdict】reader-ready / revise
【Intro opening】development problem / literature gap (fix if the latter)
【Abstract】≤250 words, finding-first, stands alone? [Y/N]
【Cross-disciplinary legibility】jargon defined; numbers translated? [Y/N]
【Policy implication】present in discussion? [Y/N]
【Source status】verified URL / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next skill】worlddev-replication-package
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:32
