Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› aos-literature-positioning
aos-literature-positioning
GitHub指导AOS论文定位文献，避免孤立综述。需嵌入AOS五十年经典对话，诚实引用跨学科源头，明确标识与2-3篇近作的概念性增量（Delta），以回应期刊选择合理性质疑。
Trigger Scenarios
文献综述未融入特定学术对话
审稿人质疑为何投AOS而非管理/社会学刊
引用集中于JAR/TAR等旁系期刊
无法指明两到三篇直接对标的先前研究
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aos-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "aos-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when situating an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript in the literature — entering one of the journal's own long-running conversations, engaging the interdisciplinary sources (organization theory, sociology, psychology) those conversations draw on, and marking precisely what the paper adds. Positions the argument; it does not build the theory itself (aos-theory-development)."
}
Literature Positioning (aos-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The front end reviews literatures without joining any specific conversation
- Reviewers could ask "why does this belong in AOS rather than a management or sociology journal?"
- Citations cluster in a sibling journal's canon (JAR/TAR earnings-quality chains, AMJ theory-building chains)
- You cannot name the two or three prior papers your findings push against
Position inside AOS's own 50-year canon
AOS is unusual: half a century of its own archive defines the conversations it cares about, and its editors read submissions against that archive. Locate the specific AOS thread your paper extends:
| Thread (examples from the canon) | You must engage it if your paper is about… |
|---|---|
| Roles of accounting beyond the textbook — Burchell et al. (1980); Hopwood (1983) | any claim that accounting does unexpected work |
| Accounting, power and the calculable person — Miller & O'Leary (1987) | costing, performance measurement, discipline |
| Accountability in everyday organizational life — Roberts & Scapens (1985) | how systems shape conduct and self-accounts |
| Budgets as political instruments — Covaleski & Dirsmith (1986) | budgeting, resource struggles, institutional pressure |
| Numbers as inscriptions and constructed reality — Hines (1988); Robson (1992); Chua (1995) | measurement, representation, expertise |
| Culture change through accounting — Dent (1991) | field studies of transformation |
| Control systems and strategy — Simons (1990) | management control design in use |
| Behavioral/JDM synthesis — Libby, Bloomfield & Nelson (2002) | experimental financial-accounting work |
| Risk and audit society — Power (2009) | risk management, auditability, regulation |
(Full verified references: resources/exemplars/library.md.)
Engage the interdisciplinary sources honestly
AOS conversations run on imported theory. Cite the primary social-science sources your tradition uses (e.g., the sociology behind institutional theory; Foucault for governmentality; Latour for inscriptions; the cognitive/social psychology behind a JDM design) as they are used in accounting — showing you know both the origin and the accounting appropriation. A paper that cites only accounting journals signals thin theorizing; one that cites only sociology signals the wrong venue.
Mark the delta
- Name the two or three nearest prior papers and state, in one sentence each, what they established and what your paper changes.
- Write the delta as a conceptual advance ("shows the mechanism is X, where prior work assumed Y"), never as inventory ("extends the literature on…").
- Anticipate the misclassification risk: say explicitly why the paper is an accounting paper and not general organization theory — the accounting practice must be analytically central, not incidental scenery.
- Disclose and differentiate your own related work in anonymized form ("prior research (Author, 20xx)").
Structure of a positioned front end
- The phenomenon and its stake (one or two paragraphs, concrete).
- The AOS conversation and its current settled view.
- The crack in that view — anomaly, silence, or contradiction.
- Your question, lens, and setting as the way through the crack.
- Preview of the conceptual answer and its consequence for the conversation.
Checklist
- One specific AOS thread identified; its key papers engaged substantively
- Primary interdisciplinary sources cited alongside their accounting uses
- Nearest two or three papers named, with a one-sentence delta against each
- The accounting practice is analytically central in the framing
- Own related work disclosed neutrally, without breaking anonymity
- No citation blocks that a reviewer could delete without loss
Anti-patterns
- Gap-spotting: "little is known about…" with no live disagreement at stake.
- Canon tourism: citing Burchell et al. and Miller & O'Leary ritually while arguing with neither.
- Wrong-canon drift: building the front end on JAR/TAR measurement debates AOS readers do not share.
- Sociology without accounting: the imported theory is centered while the accounting practice is a backdrop.
Output format
【Thread】the AOS conversation entered; key papers ...
【Settled view】what that conversation currently believes ...
【Crack】the anomaly / silence / contradiction ...
【Delta】vs nearest papers 1 / 2 / 3 — one sentence each ...
【Interdisciplinary base】primary sources + their accounting appropriation ...
【Next step】aos-methods
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:22
