Use when polishing the prose of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — sustained argumentative writing that carries theory and evidence together, a self-contained abstract, disciplined length despite the absence of a hard cap, and full anonymization for double-anonymized review. Polishes prose; it does not run the submission preflight (aos-submission).
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aos-writing-style --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Aos Writing Style?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-aos-writing-style)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: aos-writing-style
description: Use when polishing the prose of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — sustained argumentative writing that carries theory and evidence together, a self-contained abstract, disciplined length despite the absence of a hard cap, and full anonymization for double-anonymized review. Polishes prose; it does not run the submission preflight (aos-submission).
---
# Writing Style (aos-writing-style)
## When to trigger
- The draft reads as description (field papers) or as a mechanical hypothesis mill (experiments)
- Sections don't argue — the theory, findings, and discussion sit side by side unconnected
- The abstract summarizes the topic instead of the claim
- Anonymization, references, or length discipline still need a pass
## The AOS register
AOS prose is **essayistic but accountable**: long-form argument in which every interpretive move is anchored to evidence and every theoretical term earns its keep. The reader is interdisciplinary — an organizational sociologist and a JDM psychologist may both referee — so write for the intelligent non-specialist: define tradition-specific vocabulary at first use, and never let jargon substitute for reasoning.
- **Argue continuously.** Each section should advance the claim, not inventory content. Findings sections in field papers interleave excerpt and interpretation — the analysis is *in* the prose, not after it.
- **Voice.** First person is normal and honest in interpretive work ("we came to see the budget meetings as…"); keep it analytic, not confessional. Experimental papers use the plain predictive register: theory → prediction → design → result.
- **Concreteness.** Ground abstractions in the practice: named artifacts (the monthly pack, the risk register), scenes, and actors' words — anonymized but vivid.
- **Terminology ledger.** Fix one name per concept (construct, practice, site pseudonym, condition label) and hold it identical across abstract, text, exhibits, and appendices.
## Length without a cap
AOS publishes long papers and states no rigid word limit in its Guide for Authors (re-check the current guide — norms evolve). Treat that freedom as a discipline test: interpretive papers commonly run 12,000–15,000 words, and every one of them must be load-bearing. Cut scene-setting that does no theoretical work, second examples that prove the same point, and literature reviews of threads the paper never rejoins.
## Front matter
- **Abstract**: one self-contained paragraph — the question, the setting/design, the conceptual answer, and what it changes in the conversation. No citations, no suspense.
- **Keywords** chosen so both accounting and social-science indexers find the paper.
- **Introduction** executes the positioned arc (see `aos-literature-positioning`) and previews the conceptual answer — AOS readers expect to know the claim before the methods.
## Anonymization and mechanics
- Double-anonymized review: strip names, affiliations, acknowledgments, grant numbers, and self-revealing phrasing ("in our earlier study at this site") from the manuscript file; cite your own work in the third person.
- Scrub document properties/metadata; keep identifying material on the separate title page only.
- References in the journal's author–date style; reconcile the reference list against the current Guide for Authors rather than trusting the citation manager.
- Declare any generative-AI writing assistance per Elsevier policy (a declaration in the manuscript; AI tools cannot be authors).
## The paragraph audit
For a final pass, write each paragraph's job in the margin in five words or fewer ("introduces broker
concept", "handles counter-evidence on X"). Paragraphs with no statable job get cut; adjacent paragraphs
with the same job get merged. This audit is the cheapest route to AOS-grade density.
## Checklist
- [ ] Every section advances the argument; excerpts are interpreted where they appear
- [ ] Tradition vocabulary defined at first use; no undefined jargon
- [ ] Terminology ledger applied across text, exhibits, and appendices
- [ ] Length justified paragraph by paragraph despite the absence of a cap
- [ ] Abstract self-contained: question, design, conceptual answer, consequence
- [ ] Manuscript fully anonymized, metadata scrubbed; author–date references reconciled
- [ ] AI-assistance declaration included if applicable
## Anti-patterns
- **Travelogue field writing**: atmosphere and chronology with the analysis postponed to the discussion.
- **Hypothesis-mill formatting** imposed on interpretive work (H1–H8 scaffolds where no hypotheses exist).
- **Theory-section quarantine**: concepts introduced early, never used again in the findings' language.
- **Citation-armored sentences** — three references per clause in place of an argument.
- **Anonymization leaks** in acknowledgments, footnotes, or file metadata.
## Output format
```
【Register】argumentative throughout? excerpts interpreted in place? ...
【Abstract】self-contained claim stated? ...
【Terminology】ledger applied; jargon defined ...
【Length】words; what was cut and why the rest stays ...
【Anonymity & mechanics】scrubbed; author–date refs reconciled; AI declared ...
【Next step】aos-submission
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!