Writing Style & House Conventions (tar-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The intro buries the result; the reader cannot tell the finding by the end of page 2
- The prose is passive, jargon-laden, or written for a generic business audience
- References are in APA or a reference-manager default rather than Chicago
- The abstract exceeds 150 words or the manuscript leaks author identity
- A reviewer says "hard to follow," "what did you find?", or flags style issues
Write for the accounting reader, result first
TAR's audience is accounting researchers, editors, and a minimum of two expert reviewers. The intro
should, within the first page or two, state the question, the setting/identification, the finding,
and the contribution — do not make the reader wait for the result. Use the standard archival
structure (introduction, hypothesis/model development, research design, results, conclusion) and
keep terminology precise: "discretionary accruals," "abnormal audit fees," "cash effective tax
rate," "cost of equity capital" mean specific things — use them exactly.
TAR house style (verify against the AAA Manuscript Preparation Guide)
- Citations & references: The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) — not APA. Configure your
reference manager to a Chicago author-date style and reconcile by hand.
- Spelling: Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
- Abstract: no more than 150 words, beginning the article file; concrete about question,
setting, finding, and contribution — not a teaser.
- Manuscript format: 12-pt Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch margins, serially numbered
pages; initial submission within the 55-page limit (including references, tables, figures,
appendices).
- AI disclosure statement: placed immediately after the abstract and before the body (drafted
here, finalized in
tar-submission).
Anonymization is a writing task, not just a file task
Double-blind review means the prose itself must not identify the authors. Write self-citations in
the third person ("consistent with prior work (Author 2020)"), not "in our earlier study"; remove
acknowledgments, funding, institution names, and data-provider thank-yous from the manuscript body;
neutralize tell-tale phrasing that points to a known research group.
Prose discipline
- Prefer active voice and short declaratives; one idea per sentence.
- Define every construct at first use; avoid undefined acronyms.
- State hypotheses/predictions in plain directional terms.
- Be precise about causality in words (mirror the calibration from
tar-contribution-framing).
- Cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that...") and redundancy to protect the page budget.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Buried lede: the result appears only in the results section.
- APA references straight from the reference manager (TAR uses Chicago).
- 150-word abstract overflow or a vague teaser abstract.
- Self-identifying prose ("our 2019 paper") defeating double-blind review.
- Imprecise accounting terms used loosely or interchangeably.
- Passive throat-clearing that wastes the 55-page budget.
Output format
【Lede】finding + contribution on page 1–2? yes/no
【House style】Chicago references? Webster spelling? format ok? yes/no
【Abstract】≤150 words and concrete? yes/no
【Anonymization (prose)】third-person self-cites; no inline acknowledgments? yes/no
【Terminology】accounting terms precise and consistent? yes/no
【AI disclosure】drafted for post-abstract placement? yes/no
【Next step】tar-submission
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → The-Accounting-Review-Skills/skills/tar-writing-style/SKILL.md
1---2name: tar-writing-style3description: Use when polishing the prose of a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — front-loading the result, writing for an accounting audience, enforcing Chicago Manual of Style house conventions, the 150-word abstract, and full author anonymization for double-blind review. Polishes prose and style; it does not fix a thin contribution (tar-contribution-framing) or run the submission preflight (tar-submission).4---567# Writing Style & House Conventions (tar-writing-style)89## When to trigger1011- The intro buries the result; the reader cannot tell the finding by the end of page 212- The prose is passive, jargon-laden, or written for a generic business audience13- References are in APA or a reference-manager default rather than Chicago14- The abstract exceeds 150 words or the manuscript leaks author identity15- A reviewer says "hard to follow," "what did you find?", or flags style issues1617## Write for the accounting reader, result first1819TAR's audience is accounting researchers, editors, and a minimum of two expert reviewers. The intro20should, within the first page or two, state **the question, the setting/identification, the finding,21and the contribution** — do not make the reader wait for the result. Use the standard archival22structure (introduction, hypothesis/model development, research design, results, conclusion) and23keep terminology precise: "discretionary accruals," "abnormal audit fees," "cash effective tax24rate," "cost of equity capital" mean specific things — use them exactly.2526## TAR house style (verify against the AAA Manuscript Preparation Guide)2728- **Citations & references:** **The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.)** — *not* APA. Configure your29 reference manager to a Chicago author-date style and reconcile by hand.30- **Spelling:** Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.31- **Abstract:** **no more than 150 words**, beginning the article file; concrete about question,32 setting, finding, and contribution — not a teaser.33- **Manuscript format:** 12-pt Times New Roman, double-spaced, 1-inch margins, serially numbered34 pages; initial submission within the 55-page limit (including references, tables, figures,35 appendices).36- **AI disclosure statement:** placed immediately after the abstract and before the body (drafted37 here, finalized in `tar-submission`).3839## Anonymization is a writing task, not just a file task4041Double-blind review means the prose itself must not identify the authors. Write self-citations in42the third person ("consistent with prior work (Author 2020)"), not "in our earlier study"; remove43acknowledgments, funding, institution names, and data-provider thank-yous from the manuscript body;44neutralize tell-tale phrasing that points to a known research group.4546## Prose discipline4748- Prefer active voice and short declaratives; one idea per sentence.49- Define every construct at first use; avoid undefined acronyms.50- State hypotheses/predictions in plain directional terms.51- Be precise about causality in words (mirror the calibration from `tar-contribution-framing`).52- Cut throat-clearing ("It is important to note that...") and redundancy to protect the page budget.5354## Checklist5556- [ ] The finding and contribution are stated on the first page or two57- [ ] References and citations follow Chicago (16th ed.), not APA58- [ ] Abstract ≤ 150 words and concrete (question, setting, finding, contribution)59- [ ] Accounting terminology is precise and consistent throughout60- [ ] Manuscript is anonymized in prose (third-person self-cites; no acknowledgments/funding inline)61- [ ] Format matches the AAA guide (12-pt TNR, double-spaced, 1-inch margins, numbered pages)62- [ ] AI disclosure statement drafted for placement after the abstract6364## Anti-patterns6566- **Buried lede**: the result appears only in the results section.67- **APA references** straight from the reference manager (TAR uses Chicago).68- **150-word abstract overflow** or a vague teaser abstract.69- **Self-identifying prose** ("our 2019 paper") defeating double-blind review.70- **Imprecise accounting terms** used loosely or interchangeably.71- **Passive throat-clearing** that wastes the 55-page budget.7273## Output format7475```76【Lede】finding + contribution on page 1–2? yes/no77【House style】Chicago references? Webster spelling? format ok? yes/no78【Abstract】≤150 words and concrete? yes/no79【Anonymization (prose)】third-person self-cites; no inline acknowledgments? yes/no80【Terminology】accounting terms precise and consistent? yes/no81【AI disclosure】drafted for post-abstract placement? yes/no82【Next step】tar-submission83```8485---8687**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `The-Accounting-Review-Skills/skills/tar-writing-style/SKILL.md`