Use when revising prose for a Sociological Methods & Research (SMR) manuscript — methods-paper introduction arc, ASA citation style, the ≤150-word non-parenthetical abstract, and clear exposition of estimands, assumptions, and results. Edits prose and conformance; does not derive or simulate.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill smr-writing-style --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Smr Writing Style?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-smr-writing-style)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: smr-writing-style
description: Use when revising prose for a Sociological Methods & Research (SMR) manuscript — methods-paper introduction arc, ASA citation style, the ≤150-word non-parenthetical abstract, and clear exposition of estimands, assumptions, and results. Edits prose and conformance; does not derive or simulate.
---
# SMR Writing Style
Use this to make the prose match a methods journal. SMR readers are methodologists who want the
contribution stated early, the assumptions visible, and the math legible — and they want ASA style and
the abstract rules honored exactly, because conformance signals seriousness.
## The methods-paper introduction arc
Open in this order (model it on `resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md`):
1. **The methodological problem in an applied setting** — what goes wrong when researchers use the
current method, stated concretely, not "X has received much attention."
2. **Why existing methods fail** — the gap, named, not a literature tour.
3. **The contribution** — develop / evaluate / correct, in one proportional sentence (from
`smr-method-contribution`).
4. **The properties and evidence** — what you prove, what the simulation shows, what the illustration
demonstrates, each labeled by evidentiary status.
5. **The applied payoff** — what researchers can now do, and that usable software is released.
A compact roadmap closes the introduction; do not over-signpost.
## The abstract (a hard, checkable rule)
- **≤150 words** and **no parenthetical citations** (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). SAGE allows
non-parenthetical citations ("Smith (2015) showed…") but not "(Smith 2015)". Rewrite any parenthetical
cite or drop it.
- The abstract must name the **method, the problem it solves, and the evidence type** — not just the
topic. A methods abstract that reads like a substantive abstract signals scope confusion.
## Exposition discipline for math-heavy prose
- **State the estimand before the estimator**; state assumptions near the result they support.
- **Short interpretation over algebra restatement**: after a theorem, say what it means for a user, do
not re-narrate the derivation.
- **Label evidentiary status** in the prose: "we prove," "the simulation shows," "we conjecture." A
methods reader tracks these precisely.
- **Define notation once, use it consistently**; a methods paper cannot afford symbol drift.
## ASA style and house conventions
- In-text citations and references in **ASA style**; **dataset references in DataCite style** (检索于
2026-06;以官网为准). Use a reference manager configured for ASA rather than hand-formatting.
- Keep the **title page separate** from the main document for double-anonymized review; remove
self-identifying phrasing ("in our previous paper") from the body.
- Disclose **generative-AI tool use** in the back matter when applicable; if none was used, no
acknowledgement is needed.
## Before/after micro-rewrites in the SMR register
- *Before:* "Latent class analysis has received considerable attention in recent years." → *After:*
"When classes are weakly separated, standard LCA enumeration selects the wrong number of classes in
a majority of realistic samples." (opens on the failure, not the fashion)
- *Before:* "Equation (7) follows from substituting (5) into (6) and rearranging." → *After:* "Equation
(7) says the bias grows with the imbalance ratio: applied users with rare exposure groups are hit
hardest." (interprets, does not re-derive)
- *Before:* "Our results suggest the estimator performs well." → *After:* "We prove consistency under
A1–A3; the simulation shows the nominal 95% interval covers between 93.1% and 95.4% across designs."
(labels evidentiary status and quantifies)
## Checklist
- [ ] The introduction follows problem → why methods fail → contribution → evidence → payoff.
- [ ] The contribution sentence is proportional and appears early.
- [ ] The abstract is ≤150 words with zero parenthetical citations.
- [ ] The abstract names method, problem, and evidence type.
- [ ] Estimand precedes estimator; assumptions sit near their results.
- [ ] Evidentiary status (proved/simulated/conjectured) is labeled in prose.
- [ ] ASA citation style and DataCite dataset references are used.
- [ ] No self-identifying language; AI-use disclosed if applicable.
## Anti-patterns
- **Substantive-paper opening**: "much attention has been paid to…" instead of the methodological gap.
- **Parenthetical citations in the abstract**: a direct violation of the stated rule.
- **Algebra narration**: restating the derivation instead of interpreting the result.
- **Status blur**: simulation regularities written in the language of proof.
- **Hand-formatted citations**: ASA inconsistencies that signal carelessness at a methods venue.
- **Deanonymizing phrasing** left in the body under double-anonymized review.
## Output format
```text
[Prose status] ready / needs revision / not ready
[Intro arc] complete / missing step (which)
[Abstract] words=<n>, parenthetical cites=<n>, names method+problem+evidence? yes/no
[Style] ASA + DataCite applied? yes/no
[Anonymization] clean / risk where
[Next SMR skill] smr-software-and-reproducibility
```
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!