Writing Style (jar-writing-style)

When to trigger

• The intro buries the question, setting, and identification under literature review
• The prose is vague about what was done empirically ("we examine the relationship…")
• A referee says the paper is hard to follow or the design is unclear
• You need the citation/reference formatting to match JAR house style

Write like an empirical-archival accounting paper

JAR readers are accounting economists who want the research design up front. A strong JAR introduction, within its first page or two, states: the question, the setting and source of identifying variation, the main finding with its sign and economic magnitude, and the contribution. Do not make the reader wait until page eight to learn what you did. The voice is precise and economically literate — name the friction, the agents, and the identification, and prefer concrete statements ("a 2014 rule change that staggered adoption across states") over abstractions ("we leverage exogenous variation").

Structure and signposting

• Front-load. Question → setting/identification → result/magnitude → contribution, all early.
• One paragraph, one job. Motivation, setting, predictions, design, results, contribution — each clearly delimited.
• Hypotheses (if used) read as economics, not psychology construct-chains: state the predicted sign and the incentive/information reason.
• Results prose tracks the tables: describe the coefficient, its inference, and its economic magnitude; do not narrate every cell.
• Discussion restates the contribution and the scope conditions, not the results.

House style and mechanics

JAR uses a custom author-date house style (consistent with Chicago author-date conventions used across Chicago Booth journals) — not APA numeric. Configure your reference manager accordingly and then reconcile against recent JAR articles; the journal directs authors to match published style rather than a named manual. Keep variable names, hypothesis labels, and table references consistent throughout. Disclose any AI-tool use per policy; AI cannot be an author.

First-page rewrite pass

Before copyediting, rewrite the first two pages as a JAR triage memo:

If any slot needs more than one evasive sentence, the issue is substantive rather than stylistic; route back to jar-contribution-framing or jar-methods.

Checklist

• Intro states question, setting/identification, finding+magnitude, contribution on page 1-2
• Design is described concretely (the actual shock/threshold/instrument), not abstractly
• Predictions read as economic arguments with stated signs
• Results prose reports coefficients, inference, and economic magnitude (not every cell)
• Discussion restates contribution and scope, not results
• Author-date citations and references match recent JAR articles (not APA-numeric)
• Variable names, hypothesis labels, and table references consistent

Anti-patterns

• Lit-review-first intros that hide the question and design.
• Vague design language ("we exploit variation") with no named source.
• Significance narration: reciting stars instead of interpreting magnitudes.
• Construct-chain prose imported from psychology-style fields.
• Reference-manager APA output left unreconciled with JAR style.

Output format

【Intro front-loading】question/setting/finding/contribution on p.1-2? fix: ...
【Design clarity】concrete identifying variation named? ...
【Predictions voice】economic (signed) vs construct-chain ...
【Results prose】magnitude interpreted, not cell-by-cell? ...
【House style】author-date matches recent JAR? AI disclosed? ...
【Consistency】labels/tables/variables aligned? ...
【Next step】jar-submission

Resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official JAR/Chicago Booth/Wiley URLs (accessed 2026-06-01)
• ../../resources/external_tools.md — reference managers and JAR author-date styling notes