jcp-writing-style
GitHub针对《消费者心理学杂志》(JCP) 稿件进行写作润色，聚焦于以心理机制为核心的过程导向型叙事。优化引言、摘要及APA风格表达，确保突出理论贡献而非仅效应，不涉及研究设计或数据分析变更。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jcp-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jcp-writing-style",
"description": "Use when writing or revising the prose of a Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) manuscript — the process-led intro, the abstract, the theory build, and the APA-style voice — so the mechanism, not the effect, is the story. Polishes the writing; it does not change the design or analysis."
}
Writing Style (jcp-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The introduction opens with an effect or a context, not the psychological process
- The abstract reports "X affects Y" and never names the mechanism
- The theory section reads as a literature list rather than an argument toward a mediator
- Reviewers say the paper is "hard to follow" or "the contribution is buried"
- The prose is the bottleneck — but only after design and process evidence are stable
Write the mechanism as the protagonist
JCP papers are stories about the consumer's mind. The reader should learn, early, which mental process the paper is about and why it matters — then watch each study tighten the case. The house voice is APA-scientific: precise, hypothesis-driven, economical. Unlike JCR's longer, more discursive intros, JCP prose is tight and process-forward, and the Research Report format (<4,000 words; 检索于 2026-06；以官网为准) rewards severe economy. Do the writing last: an intro that promises a mechanism cannot be finalized until the mediation/moderation evidence is settled.
The process-led introduction
A JCP intro typically moves in four beats:
- The puzzle — a consumer phenomenon or a tension between what we'd expect and what happens.
- The process gap — what the field thinks the mechanism is, and why that's incomplete or wrong.
- The contribution — "We propose that [antecedent] affects [outcome] because it [changes mental state M]," with the theory-predicted moderation that tests it.
- The roadmap — what each study establishes (effect → process → boundary).
Lead with the mechanism, not "Marketing managers care about…". The managerial hook can come after the theoretical contribution, never before it.
The abstract
The abstract must name the effect, the process, and the boundary in a few sentences: what shifts, the mental mechanism that drives it, the moderator that proves the mechanism, and the contribution. Reviewers and the editor decide fit from the abstract; an abstract that reports only an effect signals an effect-only paper.
Sentence-level craft
- Name the construct, then use its logic — invoke a process by its established meaning, not as a label.
- Hypotheses stated cleanly (H1, H2…), each tied to a study and a link in the chain.
- No HARKing in the prose: present a priori predictions as predictions, post-hoc insights as exploratory.
- Active, economical voice; cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that…").
- APA mechanics: tense (past for completed studies), statistics formatted per APA, hedge appropriately ("suggests," "is consistent with") when evidence is correlational.
Checklist
- The intro names the psychological process within the first page
- The abstract states effect + process + boundary + contribution
- The contribution is process-led ("because [M]"), not effect-led, throughout
- Hypotheses are clean, a priori, and mapped to the study chain
- Managerial relevance is present but subordinate to the theoretical process
- Voice is tight, APA-scientific; Research Reports respect the word ceiling
- No HARKing; correlational claims are hedged appropriately
Anti-patterns
- Effect-first opening: an intro that leads with the finding or the context, not the mechanism
- Managerial cold open: opening with what firms should do before the theory
- Process-free abstract: reporting "X affects Y" with no mechanism
- Literature-list theory: paragraphs of citations with no argument toward the mediator
- Bloated prose: discursive, hedge-heavy writing that buries the contribution (and busts the Report limit)
- Tense/HARK slippage: post-hoc accounts written as if predicted a priori
Output format
【Intro lead】process named on page 1? [Y/N]
【Abstract】effect + process + boundary + contribution present? [Y/N]
【Contribution thread】process-led and consistent across intro/abstract/discussion? [Y/N]
【Hypotheses】clean, a priori, mapped to studies? [Y/N]
【Voice】APA-scientific, economical; Report within word limit? [Y/N]
【Next skill】jcp-submission
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 13:30
