---
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

```text
【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
```