Writing Style (jais-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The theory, evidence, and contribution are settled and the prose now needs to carry them
• The introduction reads as a literature dump and the contribution does not land in the first pages
• Your sub-field's shorthand makes the paper opaque to reviewers from other IS traditions
• References and in-text citations are not in APA 6th edition
• A reviewer says the writing is "dense," "jargon-heavy," or "the argument is hard to follow"

Write for a pluralistic, theory-forward reader

JAIS reviewers span behavioral, economic, design-science, organizational, and critical/philosophical traditions, and the journal prizes "innovative, interesting and rigorously developed" work. Your prose must therefore do two things at once: make the theoretical argument vivid and primary, and stay legible to a reader who does not share your methodological dialect. Define terms the first time; explain why a move matters before you make it; lead with ideas, not apparatus.

The introduction is the contribution, told as a story

A JAIS introduction should, in roughly its first two pages, answer: what is the IS phenomenon, why is it interesting and unresolved, what is the contribution, and why JAIS's audience should care across traditions. Open with the puzzle, not a textbook definition. State the contribution sentence early ("before this paper… ; this paper shows… ; which changes…"). Reviewers who cannot find the contribution by page two assume there isn't one.

Define constructs before you use them

The fastest way to lose a cross-tradition reviewer is to deploy a construct as if its meaning were settled. JAIS prose should define each construct at first use, distinguish it from the nearest familiar term, and keep the label consistent thereafter — no quiet synonym-swapping that makes a reader wonder whether two terms denote the same thing. This is doubly important for a new construct in a Theory paper, where the definition is part of the contribution and any slippage between the definition, the figure, and the propositions reads as conceptual imprecision.

Foreground the theory, then the evidence

Because JAIS treats theory as a first-class contribution, the narrative spine is the theoretical argument; methods and results serve it. Walk the reader through the mechanism in words before equations or coefficients. For a Theory or Perspectives paper, the prose is the contribution — invest accordingly, with crisp construct definitions and a clean logical chain from premises to propositions.

Write the abstract to do its job across traditions

The abstract is the first and sometimes only thing an editor reads before deciding fit, and at JAIS it must be self-contained and legible to reviewers from any tradition. A strong JAIS abstract moves cleanly through four beats: the IS phenomenon and why it matters, the theoretical move (new construct / framework / mechanism), the method and evidence in a clause, and the contribution stated as a change in what the field knows. Avoid opening the abstract with method ("Using a survey of 412…") — lead with the phenomenon and the idea, because that is what a cross-tradition editor is screening for.

Prose mechanics JAIS reviewers notice

• APA 6th edition references and in-text citation; lead with the idea, not a parenthetical pile-up.
• Prefer active voice and concrete subjects; cut nominalizations ("the operationalization of" → "we measured").
• One idea per paragraph, with a topic sentence that states the claim.
• Define every construct on first use; do not assume cross-tradition familiarity.
• Keep the abstract a faithful, self-contained summary of phenomenon, theory, method, and contribution.

Match the prose register to the category

JAIS's categories carry different rhetorical contracts, and the prose should honor the one you chose. A Theory paper reads as a sustained conceptual argument — definitions, logic, propositions — where every paragraph advances the construct or framework. A Research Perspectives paper is allowed (indeed expected) to take a position and argue it, with a more essayistic, persuasive voice. Foundational Research prose should be vivid and descriptive about the novel phenomenon, resisting premature abstraction. A Research Article keeps the theory-first spine but moves briskly into design and evidence. Writing a Theory paper in the clipped hypothesis-test register of a Research Article (or vice versa) signals category confusion before a reviewer reaches the contribution.

Respect double-blind anonymity in the prose

Word self-citations neutrally ("prior research (Author, 2020) found…"), not "in our earlier work." Strip acknowledgments, funding, and identifying site/dataset names from the body; they belong on the separate title page. Anonymity failures in the prose cause administrative returns before review.

Mind the length while polishing

Tightening prose is also length management: JAIS flags manuscripts over ~15,000 words for extra scrutiny and will not review beyond 65 pages. Cut throat-clearing, consolidate repeated framing, and let exhibits carry detail the text need not restate.

Checklist

• The contribution is stated within the first ~two pages of the introduction
• The theoretical argument is the narrative spine; methods/results serve it
• Every construct is defined on first use; cross-tradition jargon is unpacked
• Active voice, concrete subjects, one idea per paragraph
• APA 6th references and in-text citation throughout
• Abstract is a faithful, standalone summary (phenomenon → theory → method → contribution)
• Self-citations neutral; no identifying info in the body (double-blind)
• Prose tightened so the manuscript stays within the length budget

Worked vignette: rewriting an opening for JAIS (illustrative)

A draft opens: "Information systems research has long studied technology adoption (citation, citation, citation). Recently, AI agents have emerged. In this paper, we study AI agents in customer service using survey data from 412 agents." Three sentences in and a JAIS reviewer still does not know the puzzle or the contribution. A theory-forward rewrite opens on the tension: "When an AI agent can complete a service task autonomously, who is the service worker accountable to — the customer, the manager, or the algorithm? Existing adoption theory assumes the human remains the locus of action; we show that autonomous agents relocate it, and we develop the construct of accountability displacement to theorize the consequences." The puzzle is live, the contribution is stated by the second sentence, and a reviewer from any tradition can see why it matters — exactly what a pluralistic, theory-forward panel rewards.

Anti-patterns

• An introduction that reviews the literature for pages before stating the contribution.
• Method-first prose that buries the theoretical argument under apparatus.
• Sub-field jargon left undefined for a pluralistic reviewer pool.
• "In our prior work" phrasing that breaks double-blind anonymity.
• Polishing prose before the theory, evidence, and contribution are actually settled.

Output format

【Journal】Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS)
【Contribution by page 2?】yes/fix
【Theory-first narrative】theory is the spine, methods serve it: yes/fix
【Cross-tradition legibility】jargon defined: yes/fix
【APA 6th + active voice】pass/fix
【Abstract】standalone phenomenon→theory→method→contribution: yes/fix
【Anonymity in prose】no identifying info; neutral self-cites: pass/fix
【Length】within ~15k words / 65pp: yes/trim
【Next skill】jais-submission