Writing Style (isr-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The argument is sound but the prose buries it, is jargon-heavy, or is passive
- The abstract is over length or does not state the contribution
- Notation is inconsistent (analytical papers) or constructs drift (behavioral papers)
- You need a final pass before
isr-submission
Front-load the IS contribution
ISR readers span behavioral, economic, design-science, and organizational backgrounds, so the introduction must make the contribution to IS legible to all of them quickly: the phenomenon, why the IT artifact makes it an IS question, the gap/tension in a named IS conversation, what you do, and what you find. Do not make a reviewer reverse-engineer the point from the results. Because ISR is intradisciplinary, name the bridge you build (e.g., an economic lens on a behavioral phenomenon) early and in plain language.
Write for two audiences without losing either
In an analytical paper, give the intuition before the algebra — every key result should have a one-sentence plain-language reading so behavioral readers can follow it. In a behavioral paper, define constructs precisely and avoid undefined formalism. Multimethod papers should signpost transitions between methods and remind the reader how each piece serves the shared argument.
Abstract, notation, and consistency
- Abstract: 300 words maximum. Lead with the phenomenon and contribution, not background.
- Notation (analytical): define every symbol on first use; keep a consistent convention; never reuse a symbol for two meanings.
- Constructs (behavioral): one name per construct throughout; hypothesis labels stable across text, tables, and figures.
INFORMS style and double-anonymization
Use the INFORMS author-date reference style: references alphabetized by author, with in-text citations
by author name and year. Files are double-spaced, at least 11-point font, with one-inch margins
on all four sides. Keep the text double-anonymized: remove names, affiliations, and identifying
acknowledgments, and word self-citations neutrally so the prose does not reveal authorship.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Buried lede: the contribution appears only in the discussion.
- Algebra without intuition that loses behavioral readers.
- Construct/notation drift between text and exhibits.
- Identity leakage in acknowledgments or "our prior work" phrasing.
Style execution pass for Information Systems Research
Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the digital artifact or system, user/firm behavior, identification or design evidence, and IS-theory contribution; then test whether the manuscript addresses IS reviewers who expect digital-technology theory, empirical or design leverage, and implications for organizations or markets.
- Primary move: Rewrite the opening and transitions so the venue-level claim, evidence object, and contribution are visible before technical detail; keep house-style limits tied to the source map.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- Sibling comparison: compare against MIS Quarterly for broader IS theory, Management Science for OR/MS generality, Journal of Management Information Systems for applied IS systems; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Intro front-loading】contribution + bridge stated early? [...]
【Two-audience readability】intuition/definitions present? [...]
【Abstract】≤300 words, contribution-led? [...]
【Notation/construct consistency】[...]
【INFORMS style + format】author-date, spacing, margins: pass/fix
【Anonymization】pass/fix
【Next step】isr-submission
1---2name: isr-writing-style3description: Use when polishing the prose, structure, abstract, and notation of an Information Systems Research (ISR) manuscript — front-loading the IS contribution, writing for a sociotechnical and intradisciplinary readership, keeping the 300-word abstract and double-anonymized text, and following INFORMS author-date style. Late-stage polish; do not invoke while the contribution or identification/proof is still unsettled.4---56# Writing Style (isr-writing-style)78## When to trigger910- The argument is sound but the prose buries it, is jargon-heavy, or is passive11- The abstract is over length or does not state the contribution12- Notation is inconsistent (analytical papers) or constructs drift (behavioral papers)13- You need a final pass before `isr-submission`1415## Front-load the IS contribution1617ISR readers span behavioral, economic, design-science, and organizational backgrounds, so the introduction must make the **contribution to IS** legible to all of them quickly: the phenomenon, why the IT artifact makes it an IS question, the gap/tension in a named IS conversation, what you do, and what you find. Do not make a reviewer reverse-engineer the point from the results. Because ISR is intradisciplinary, name the bridge you build (e.g., an economic lens on a behavioral phenomenon) early and in plain language.1819## Write for two audiences without losing either2021In an analytical paper, give the **intuition before the algebra** — every key result should have a one-sentence plain-language reading so behavioral readers can follow it. In a behavioral paper, define constructs precisely and avoid undefined formalism. Multimethod papers should signpost transitions between methods and remind the reader how each piece serves the shared argument.2223## Abstract, notation, and consistency2425- **Abstract: 300 words maximum.** Lead with the phenomenon and contribution, not background.26- **Notation** (analytical): define every symbol on first use; keep a consistent convention; never reuse a symbol for two meanings.27- **Constructs** (behavioral): one name per construct throughout; hypothesis labels stable across text, tables, and figures.2829## INFORMS style and double-anonymization3031Use the INFORMS **author-date** reference style: references alphabetized by author, with in-text citations32by author name and year. Files are **double-spaced**, **at least 11-point** font, with **one-inch margins**33on all four sides. Keep the text **double-anonymized**: remove names, affiliations, and identifying34acknowledgments, and word self-citations neutrally so the prose does not reveal authorship.3536## Checklist3738- [ ] Intro front-loads the IS contribution and the intradisciplinary bridge39- [ ] Intuition precedes algebra (analytical); constructs defined (behavioral)40- [ ] Abstract ≤ 300 words and contribution-led41- [ ] Notation/construct names consistent across text and exhibits42- [ ] INFORMS author-date style; double-spaced, ≥11-pt, 1-inch margins43- [ ] Text double-anonymized; self-citations neutral44- [ ] Active voice; jargon minimized for a cross-paradigm readership4546## Anti-patterns4748- **Buried lede**: the contribution appears only in the discussion.49- **Algebra without intuition** that loses behavioral readers.50- **Construct/notation drift** between text and exhibits.51- **Identity leakage** in acknowledgments or "our prior work" phrasing.525354## Style execution pass for Information Systems Research5556Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the digital artifact or system, user/firm behavior, identification or design evidence, and IS-theory contribution; then test whether the manuscript addresses IS reviewers who expect digital-technology theory, empirical or design leverage, and implications for organizations or markets.5758- **Primary move:** Rewrite the opening and transitions so the venue-level claim, evidence object, and contribution are visible before technical detail; keep house-style limits tied to the source map.59- **Decision ledger:** return `claim / evidence / blocker / next edit` rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.60- **Sibling comparison:** compare against MIS Quarterly for broader IS theory, Management Science for OR/MS generality, Journal of Management Information Systems for applied IS systems; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.61- **Verification floor:** before submission-ready advice, re-open `resources/official-source-map.md` for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.6263## Output format6465```66【Intro front-loading】contribution + bridge stated early? [...]67【Two-audience readability】intuition/definitions present? [...]68【Abstract】≤300 words, contribution-led? [...]69【Notation/construct consistency】[...]70【INFORMS style + format】author-date, spacing, margins: pass/fix71【Anonymization】pass/fix72【Next step】isr-submission73```
brycewang-stanford